“My loving mum? who went hungry to see us eat? who fought like a tiger to stop smacking?
The girl she hit was my sister mum FLOGGED her 3 kl ms to school , with a broom!
all those years ago in Bargo every farm door opened and watched strange isn't it?
It was the Handel and it broke mum still hit away, sister won, she went home with mum WE went to school.”

The image really does make me laugh Belly, the girl must have been guilty of a serious crime in your mum’s eyes? How did your sister win?

Belly I don’t get why you disagree with Mary, she obviously does not approve of extreme behaviors that an adult could inflict on a child and neither do you.

I thought it looked like you two do have similar opinions on the subject.

It is a bit of a quandary, you want government to butt out of regular families and the way they choose to live but we do need laws because of the “other” type of families.

Just back from Dad & Daughter time with my 29 yo...

TPP "It is a bit of a quandary, you want government to butt out of regular families and the way they choose to live but we do need laws because of the “other” type of families."

Who gets to decide what is the "other" type of family?

The problem with regulation is it is a stick held by a blind person who just lashes out at everyone, regardless of the circumstance.

Better there were no "family" based laws and only those laws which reflect a general unacceptance of any abuse inflicted upon anyone.

And I dont think disciplining a child automatically qualifies as "abuse", quite the opposite.

Government are elected by the people they seek to "regulate" but government and politicians need some humility.

They might "regulate" but the do not and never should "rule".

Col: “Better there were no "family" based laws and only those laws which reflect a general unacceptance of any abuse inflicted upon anyone.”

This makes sense and I can see how it would work better than the confusion surrounding the family courts and children’s courts now - in my limited way.

But no one would like it Col, the family based laws enable more abuse towards children to be tolerated in society. We’d be overflowing with foster kids if everyone had to treat their children better than a stranger on the street.

Like the old domestic violence laws (or lack of)and domestic rape laws (ditto) left families to sort out their own problems.

“Who gets to decide what is the "other" type of family?”

Right now I think it is teachers, health workers, police and caseworkers. There are probably a few more mandatory reporters I’ve forgotten. Oh yeah – apparently I am one which no one told me until recently and I probably need a lawyer to explain how a “volunteer” has to obey policy made for people on salaries who are trained in mandatory reporting.

But because the law is changing (DoCS hotline was overwhelmed) people now have to do a lot more damage before these workers are required to report it, cases of neglect that build up over a longer period and consist of regular small reports will be ignored.

That’s a load off for NSW’s.

In regard to children I might be considered “socialist”?

runner just because I said I would like to do something doesnt mean I would do it. Its called self control. I didnt say I wanted such things I asked why is there a difference between violence to adults and violence to children.

By debating such issues and deciding where your ethics stand in advance you make it easier for yourself to know what to do in an emotionally charged situation where judgment may be clouded. Most "discipline" of children I have seen is backed with a generous dose of loss of temper on the part of the adult. Anger is never conducive to good decision making and to have set your own guidelines beforehand would seem a logical and responsible attitude for a parent to take and make it easier for them to know what to do when a child misbehaves.

Either violence, of any kind, is unnaceptable for all or it is ok to beat anyone for their transgressions. To justify violence to children while saying the same act on an adult would be assault people must twist logic into knots and ignore the responsibilities that adults have to protect and assist children and the powerless.

Hello STG, in reply to your comment at the bottom of the previous page. If what you say is accurate, then surely tens upon tens of thousands of NZ parents, who give their children a smack on the bum, have been charged. Have they? I bet NOT.

As I read it, the intent of the NZ law is NOT to entrap parents into being charged with assault from a normal, everyday smack. It's intent is to make sure that parents who abuse and attack their children ARE charged. And this is as it should be.

So STG, please tell me how many NZ parents, over this past 2 years, have been charged with merely smacking their children on the bum. Please tell me. I'm not talking about parents who have genuinely assaulted their children. I'm talking about harmless smacks.

How many NZers have been charged with this harmless smacking STG? Keeping in mind that over that 2 year period, probably innumerable millions upon millions of harmless smackings of children have happened in NZ. Thank you STG.

Jewely I was a tough 9 year old, my sister then 7 was tougher.
She took the blows and still refused to go to school, her and mum left us to continue on to school after that, we had 2 more k,s to go, they both too untidy and warn out did not want to be seen in town.
The program, on radio national will still be there, available for download, as I heard it traveling at work I am unsure what it was.
MaryE seems to believe we made it up, that no law exists re read her posts, I see a hint of so what its not true in any case in her posts surely you do?
A guilty verdict in the case I spoke of above was unsure if it was for the ear flick r alleged punch, see the ear flick is assault under current NZ Law.