The Federal Government is wasting $2.5 m telling us not to smack our kids according to Courier Mail columnist Paul Syvret http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21527521-27197,00.html.

I agree, but I think that Syvret misses the crux of the issue. The campaign appears to rest on an assumption of mind body duality, a way of analysing the human being which most scientists and philosophers would now accept as being wrong. Descartes said "I think therefore I am", as though the mind more or less switched the rest of the body on. We now know that it is just as valid to say "I am therefore I think", and that there are huge biological interactions in both directions between mind and body.

What the anti-smacking campaign appears to be saying is that mental coercion is fine, but physical isn't, and that there is something wrong with communicating something through our physical sensors rather than mental ones. Makes me wonder how long body contact sport will be fashionable, and then perhaps we won't be allowed to cause ourselves any pain, even if it is done in the course of physical exercise.

Where does it leave me if I deliberately allow my younger son to bump into something when he is running because the pain will do a better job of training him not to run than me saying "Don't run"? Will that be child abuse one day?

The root of the problem is that some people want to deny that humans are part of the physical world at all. They'd love to do without all that icky painful smelly stuff called life.

Personally I think that the Government's campaign is simply an exercise in sending some money out to its mates.

To smack or not to smack is a question that has troubled the mind of man for some time, there are those who see it as a barbaric practice and those who see the ending of corporal punishment as the begining of the end of civilization as we know it.
It's a toss up.

I'd really like to see the local hoons who commit minor anti-social things such as breaking bottles in the streets or practicing their grafitti on some old ladies new 'Panel-Bond' fence, publically flogged on their bare arses in front of the Town Hall at 11.00AM each Saturday morn.

If nothing else it would provide alternative entertainment for their mates who might hesitate to emulate their example, either around town or in front of the appreciative townsfolk.

It would give new meaning to "Elevenses".

GY, still mulling over your philosophical points of view, until this comes to end I'd like to remind you of those horrible parents and teachers who love nothing more than to flog kids.

I recall my 10th Grade teacher punching me full fisted in the face. He yelled abuse at me for some time before this.

The violence I felt was not physical but the helplessness against a system that would always support this kind of violence as 'behaviour managment and thus justified'.

Are you suggesting this violent act taught me something worthwhile?

PS. I don't think Jerry likes you.

Rainier, I wasn't defending "flogging". I went to a Catholic boys school in Brisbane from Grade 8, but you could go from Grade 5 or 6. The veterans from the lower school talked about a vicious dispensation that had existed before Fr Dempsey became the principal, which was the year I went there. According to gossip, there were fathers and brothers who used to use the strap pretty profligately.

I was only caned once in my whole school career - bit of a goody two-shoes - and the time I was caned upset me terribly. However I was hit once or twice at home in my teenage years. I have hit my own kids, maybe once each, when it seemed appropriate. Just because I don't approve of indiscriminate flogging doesn't mean that I don't see a use for judicious application of pain.

I often wonder if it was the violence that makes Kevin Rudd appear to be so reticent to talk about his time at Marist Brothers Rosalie, or to want to claim it as an Alma Mater. He could win some friends if he spoke out. There are generations that would empathise.

Do you have kids? Have you never smacked them?

Having attended Catholic schools for most of my life,corporal punishment in the right context,just shows you care.

I still remember to this day when I was six years old being ostracised and belittled by a teacher in our public system because I could not draw the pitch on a house roof to her satisfaction.Now that is child abuse.It hurt a lot more than being belted.

The greatest abuse of children today is the lack of discipline which our socialists state endorses through their fear of our legal disease.The legal fraternity need to do some soul searching,otherwise decay will be the order of the day.

hi all,

well sadly, physical abuse, is usually accompanied by
other forms of abuse as well....
as is documented....

I think the idea is that the people who regularly, hit and belt
their children badly
propagate their then children to be abusers on adulthood

a small step is to remind people that physical and mental
abuse is a crime ... yes here in australia

comes under assault laws

violence breeds violence.....and long term violence and
emotional abuse...
is what fills our jails

JH

My parents never lay a hand on me. And I was (at least until teenagerhood) a perfectly well behaved child. To the point of geekiness.

I remember never wanting to do the wrong thing, because I didn't want to upset my folks. I think mine is a fairly good example of positive reinforcement.

I guess smacking your kid wouldn't be such a bad thing if there was no other option. But there's always other options. A smack may seem the most effective way, but it's really just the easiest way. Also, they're too small to hit back.

Having said that though, make your kid shut up or get off the tram.

I was caned twice at school, once for slapdash writing, once for drawing a rude picture of the teacher on the blackboard.My parents didn't hit us much, but Dad had a big leather strop hanging on the wall[for his razors] and one look from him to us and to the strop, turned us into instant angels.
My lot got a wallop when I considered it would be benificial to their well being and to mine when they overstepped the bounds of family law.
I do not think the politically correct social engineers over the past thirty years have been of great good in this country, in fact, I would like to see my father's strop used on quite a lot of them.

This point came up with my elder daughter about 2 years ago on the event of fathers day. She, then 24 years of age said to me - "Dad you were a disciplinarian when we were growing..... "

When she and her younger sister used to snipe at one another in the back of the car I would threaten to bang their heads together - and eventually would pull the car over, get out, grab some head hair in each hand and then, judiciously clop said heads together. Occassionally, I would apply a flat hand to the backs of legs. I used a flat hand to remind me of how hard the blow was. My ex wife preferred a wooden spoon - such weaponry I disapprove of, the sting I felt was a reminder of how judicious a blow was needed to chastise my, generally, well behaved and beautiful daughters.

Spirited children test the boundaries of their universe. As parents it is our responsibility to maintain certain or those boundaries against which our children will rebel.

So be it, the conclusion to my daughters state (earlier) was ".... but we needed it."

She is the happiest person I know. She never took drugs or smoked she is buying her second property and holds a responsible job. She doesnot accept crap from anyone.

Was corporal punishment necessary in rearing my daughters - yes
Was it applied - yes
Do I regret it - no
Do my daughters regret it - no

There - in my book experience counts more than political correctness or bunkum and bulldust of a bunch of knowall theoristic busybodies.

..and my experience counts for nothing, apparently

"In previous centuries, special defences existed in legislation in many states to justify corporal punishment of wives, servants, slaves and apprentices. Violence to women remains far too prevalent, but in most states it is no longer defended in legislation. It
is paradoxical and an affront to humanity that the smallest and most vulnerable of people should have less protection from assault than adults".

www.endcorproalpunishment.org

Spendocrat, your experience does count. However, I am interested in your comments about being well behaved until you turned into a teenager. Perhaps a memory of a few well-deserved clips under the ear might have made you a slightly better behaved teenager!? :) Do you have kids? I am guessing not, or you would have a better understanding of how smacking fits into general child-rearing, particularly in their early years.

I guess it depends on how you define smacking too. Smacking with an open palm is indeed a good gauge of how much force to apply - you get a sting too. Punching a child should never be acceptable. I also have trouble with the idea of using a weapon of any nature.

I remember being smacked (or hit) 3 times, twice by Dad, who always threatened to use the belt hanging behind the door, but only ever smacked with an open palm, usually on the arm, and once by Mum, who DID use the belt. I know I thoroughly deserved it every time!

hi all,
hi Ranier,
I thought that australian assault laws...
which I read the fine print of

say that physical and emotional abuse are a criminal offence ?

recently I heard on the bbc radio that in mexico there is a
90 per cent average for the country of domestic violence
and murder

people seem to think that domestic violence is HITTING etc.
which of course it is not that only

the emotional severe abuse that goes with it.... as a social
structure is what does the real damage

it is good to have an against child abuse, and or adult abuse...
media advertisements..... they certainly cause some discussion
and eventually help to change what a society will tolerate

they have started tv adverts in mexico to try and get the message
across

as far as I am concerned, its a crime....simply put
and no pretty words changes that

it amazes me the amount of tolerance for abuse, that I see around me,
banging kids heads together can cause brain damage...etc. and so on

the tv adverts, programs, and latest run of new fat, house, and such
programs to me reeks of abuse..... in its highest forms

I think it is wonderful that you had great parents....
they deserve a gold medal in my opinion ...you will make a great
parent one day

JHH

spendocrat,

the last paragraph above was for your parents...
they deserve a gold medal
you following on will make a GREAT parent
got mixed up there...
was talking to Ranier too

JHH

Country Gal - whatever misbehaviour I engaged in as a teenager had little or nothing to do with the influence of my parents. I probably would have been much worse had I been handed a perceived injustice (such as being hit) to rebel against.

Hello to all,

Show me a child who has been loved and cared for and I'll show you hundreds upon hundreds that have never known this as a standard and normal relationship with an adult.

If laws introduce some overarching rights for children then I would rather have these than none at all.

I admit that there is fine line between assessing parental reprimands using force and what could be seen as child abuse.

But I've witnessed too many children falling prey to this 'parental arguement' than actually benefiting from it.

In a world where work hours are longer and family life is now those few hours in front of the box at night, the 'smack' is being used as a substitute for 'quality time' and 'quality parenting'.

Kids need us to protect them full stop.

My recollections of canings at school are of punishments handed out at the wrong time, there were times I probably deserved it but not the times I got it.

Home was a different matter, physical punishment was more carefully judged, it was fast and did not come with a bunch of emotional loadings. I always new I was loved and what it was about. There may have been better ways that some situations could have been handled and there certainly worse ways things could have been done.

What continues to astound me about this is how much of the debate about discipline of children focuses on physical punishment. BD started a thread some time ago about smacking and generated a torrent of posts, I started one on the idea of a parental toolkit to try and gather ideas for parents for the discipline toolkit and had very little interest.

I see plenty of public comment on smacking, very little on emotional punishments which can also easily become abuse and are much harder to measure.

I see very little comment on the abuse that is failure to discipline. The failure to give a child the security of knowing where the boundaries are.

Parental discipline (and for other people with discipline roles) is a complex make it up as you go task that needs a variety of tools available for different situations, different natured children, different age of the children and the abilities of the parent to manage their own role in discipline.

The debate should be how to best equip parents, teachers and others to make wise and helpful choices as they discipline children (and work with others who need to do so) rather than about opposition to one particular issue.

R0bert

I think it is a very good idea that some of my tax dollars will go towards a $2.5m campaign against corporal punishment.
I just wish they’d even spend more money on this important issue rather than wasting $90 million on chaplains in public schools.

While I haven’t seen any details on what the money is going to be specifically spend on, I am glad that finally the issue is getting some attention.

Like Spendocrat’s parents, my parents have never hit my brothers and me, and I have never once seen violence happen at school (corporal punishment was outlawed in Holland when my mum was at primary school, perhaps in the late 40’s).

I have never resorted to hitting my own children either, I found that unnecessary. My kids have always been extremely well behaved- at school, in our community, and on other peoples’ properties.
When there were sometimes minor problems with their behaviour at home, these problems were taken care off without the use of emotional or physical punishment.

Children need love, patience, attention (lots of it), to be listened to, consistency, and guidance. Above all, they need and deserve to feel respected.

They need to be shown by example, they need to feel safe enough in their own home to allow themselves to make mistakes and learn from them with the parents’ help.
My children had/have no need to lie to me- they knew it was safe to tell the truth about their mistakes. Children need to learn to make the right choices motivated by fully understanding the reasons for these choices, not because they fear they will be clipped around the ear, smacked on the bottom or slapped on their legs.

If parents resort to violent behaviour, then can they expect their children to be patient enough with other people (and animals) if there are conflicts or feelings of powerlessness?
Is it OK for parents to hit their children, but not OK for children to hit animals or other children- children who are different to them, perhaps of the opposite sex or of a different ethnicity?

continued

When I look around me and see parents smacking their toddlers, I don’t understand the lack of patience parents exhibit. There is no time, no patience, and so much frustration and anger.

Is it logical to agree that because the parents cannot cope properly with parenthood the children should have to suffer?
No, if parents cannot cope with parenthood without resorting to violence of any kind, money should be spent to educate them.

Is Mise, I think it is far more likely that the street-rioting, bottle-throwing mob come from neglectant or violent homes than that they come from safe and non-aggressive homes where they are respected, properly guided and listened to.

Ranier, thanks for that link, I’ll have a proper look on that site tomorrow.

RObert, “The debate should be how to best equip parents, teachers and others to make wise and helpful choices as they discipline children.” And that’s what I am hoping the government will spend some money on- to equip parents and teachers.

I was also hoping the government would be smart enough to properly organise parental leave so both parents can schedule their time with the children.
Reduced work hours, more flexible hours, the ability to work part-time are all things the government could encourage and support if they are serious about good parenting. The first thing a parent needs is time!

children are as individual as their parents.

Governments are equipped to produce standard formats and processes which ignore a childs "individuality".

The best thing a government can do is to support parents in bringing up their children and stop trying to dictate to parents how to bring up their children. How? well stop offering financial incentives to run aways to run away. Stop the bureaucrats from interfering in the lives of ordinary folk. When one of my daughters said "If you smack me I will call the child services" - i simply said - "hey let me call them for you and we can pack your bag in the time it will take for them to come and collect you".

I love my daughters like any loving father does.
They love me because I gave them the security of unconditional love. "Unconditional love" means never to be traded or taken away. It does not mean no-rules or no discipline. Children test their boundaries and without boundaries firmly in place, there is noting for them to test against.

"Judicial discipline" is just that, firstly "judicial" and if that means "corporal" discipline as well, them so be it.

A disciplining parent will love and care for their own child more than an undisciplined bureaucrat or official of the state, doing a job, will ever do.

Nothing there i would not disagree with Sir Col, but how do we police abuse?

Nothing there i would not disagree with Sir Col, but how do we police abuse?

Between 2000-2003 the type of abuse reported by the AIHW were:

10% sexual abuse

28% physical abuse

34% emotional abuse

28 neglectd

These of course would overlap with each other for every case.

These statistics cannot be ignored simply because we individually wnat to feel smug about our own styles of parenting.

hi all,

aside from the issue that assaulting children is bad for them
and society
and is also a crime in this country

yesterday a very young couple, with baby and pram,
went past my windows, arguing, and so on, the gentleman, well kid really, sounding off at his girlfriend in an agressive manner, with baby in tow in pram ?

recently I was next to a family ? older parent with boyfriend, both were grandparents, ..........a grown up son with 3/4 children,
and a girlfriend with a new baby to someone else, who did herion,
and she left the new born with him, because he hit her, and went back to this fellow

all day, night, and continually .. verbal abuse, and severe
emotional abuse, TAB gambling and so on.... 24 hours a day, in a one bedroom flat with 8 people on and off....

perhaps its more about, can you afford a child to begin with

I figured they cost $10,000 per year per child....

just a wee thought....

regarding society looking after the family, there was no hope of that
in any direction..... except perhaps for them going to school

the 6/7 year old, thought already you made money gambling...
horses TAB and all that.....

children are precious, and also cost financially, and contraception might be a worthwhile
media exercise....

JHH

Rainer, thanks for the info. Similar to what I'd seen previously through the Abused Child Trust (http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/./facts.htm) and an alterante path to info I've referenced previously.

Hunting through a report from the AIHW website (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/cpa04-05/cpa04-05.pdf) I came across some interesting comment on substantiations

"Although the outcomes of investigations varied across the states and territories, in all jurisdictions a large proportion of investigations were not substantiated; that is, there was no reasonable cause to believe that the child was being, or was likely to be, abused, neglected or otherwise harmed. For example, 62% of finalised investigations in New South Wales and South Australia and 54% in Western Australia were not substantiated (Table 2.2).
The proportion of investigations that were substantiated ranged from 38% in New South Wales and South Australia to 74% in Queensland."

The wording and proportion took me by surprise and it made we aware how cautious we all need to be taking potted looks into other peoples lives and making assumptions based on those looks.

The stats are also a reminder of just how prevalent emotional abuse is. Emotional abuse seems to be such a hard one to qualify and police.
What in one context might be harmless banter in another situation can be emotional abuse, somuch depends on how well equiped the recipient is to deal with it.

R0bert

That's true, RObert.
But we also need to keep in mind how well the authorities investigate it, how they deal with it, and how shifty some parents can be about covering up child abuse.

A couple of years ago, I read a book I wish I never read because it haunted me in my dreams for years- it was so distressful to just read it.

"A Child Called It" by David J. Pelzer
It is an authobiography written by the surviving victim of one of the most severe cases of child abuse in (I think) California.
From kindergaten age, David was starved, beaten, stabbed... emotionally and physicall abused by his alcoholic mother. His father was aware but did NOTHING about it.
There were his siblings- I recall 4 or 5, who were not abused. David was singled out as the only one to receive such abuse.

I am mentioning this story to show that even though authorities were investigating the case, the abuse went on and on until David was about 12 years old. His mother was just good at covering it up.

It is extremely distressful to read, but it was an eye opener about the inadequacy of the child protection authorities. Even though it happened in the 70s and in the USA, we must keep in mind that our child-welfare system is also quite overloaded and many cases may be overlooked.

We have to be very sensitive and alert to what we observe.
We are all responsible for the children we meet.

We should not only get Child Welfare involved if we suspect the worst, but we also should check whether the welfare system are doing their job well.
It's no good having a Child Welfare system if they fail.

Robert, indeed, emotional abuse is hard to determine. What can often be considered good parenting by one is considered abuse by another.

I too am surprised by those statistics- especially the disproportions between states.

The department of family services in Queensland are so dysfunctional that if they were all to take leave you would not know differently.

I know of cases where children are at risk were placed in an even more dangerous environment.

Perfectly good kids being placed with chaotic, violent, and predatory adults is common place.

The focus is too much on punitive intervention instead of the longitudinal welfare of children.

Interesting original thoughts.

How DO you define the line of abuse (if smacking is made to be illegal) and indeed, does mental count?...could yelling at "my child" (don't have one) just before he/she sets the cat on fire be considered abuse as well?

You can't legislate for a "perfect" society and are the government going to run EVERYONE through a training or re-training course for whatever they decide is the right way to raise your child?.

Celivia, Rainier, good points. I've not done the double checks but my recollection is that substantiated rates of abuse in Qld are similar to other states which leaves me wondering why such a difference in the proportion of notifications being substantiated.

We are drifting off topic from Graham's original post but the topic of child protection (what works, what does not, how do we detect and prove abuse etc) is in my view a much better focus than on just one potential form of abuse.

I've got similar views to Rainer on the state of child protection in Qld. To many horror stories around, to many stories of kids being abused while in foster care (as if kids in foster care have not already suffered enough). My impression is that there are some good people working in the system but they are not adequately equiped (resources and corporate culture) to support them in their job.

R0bert

Robert wrote: "My impression is that there are some good people working in the system but they are not adequately equiped (resources and corporate culture) to support them in their job."

Yes I too know this story of frustration from good people who have found themselves in a dysfunctional system.

But then again I've also heard it from lousy people who use it as a crotch to prop up / cover up their own stuff ups.

Somewhere between these good and lousy people are kids who really don't care how systems work at all and rightfully so.

From my perspective one of the major and yet under reported reason in why child welfare has changed for the worse over the last 2 decades can be attributed to state and commonweatlh fights over funding and responsibility.

We need national legislation that enshrines principle of care and the rights of children. See http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Child abuse is a symptom of not just system failure but of a society that thinks they are expedient.

I might also add that our Elders need protection too. These two book ends of life protection are badly needed - at least until we get it right 'naturally'

hi all interesting posts:

re the TAB gambler, I lived immmediately next door to...
so I got to know the symptoms extremely well...
have now moved..... one year was enough...

one can report child things as they are a crime...
say like if the child is not at school......
these reports if added to regularly might get a look in

in some cases that are so involved, breaking the family up,
just makes things worse..... as any extended family is similar...
and or problematic

not having children if you cant afford them, is the only answer...
and sex education as fast as is possible
..............

education is always the key, so bring the DONT ABUSE adverts on...
the best thing since chocolate...grin

media reminders, sink in, and are actually quoted....

I heard the above/father abusing his son one time, actually saying .....
you are not being abused...
AH EH my big fat toe

however he had seen the late night dont abuse children ads no doubt

slowed him down a wee bit

JHH

corporal

of the human body....

hi all... as a general rule.... I dont use the word corporal...

as BELT or HIT or assault is more in my terminology....grin

looked up that site Ranier..... yep pretty cool

half the people I know would not know what corporal punishment meant..

however now that is clear....

usually if someone belts a child for any reason, you will find
that they are abusive in other ways,

emotional
verbal
sexual
vd sexual

and so on....

carried down like genes.... ?

JHH

JHH, I'd be interested to see the independant research backing your statement "usually if someone belts a child for any reason, you will find that they are abusive in other ways"

That's not my impression. I would agree with you if you were talking about those who lose control and belt a child around the head, punch them etc but your wording is much broader than that.

No research to back it up but I suspect that those who fail to appropriately discipline a child are likely to be the ones who are abusive in other ways be it physical, emotional, sexual, neglect etc.

R0bert

Rainier, what do you mean by "Child abuse is a symptom of not just system failure but of a society that thinks they are expedient". What is expedient?

Under the heading of child abuse, religion has to be one of the biggest culprits.

In his latest book 'The God Delusion', Richard Dawkins, considered one of the world’s most influential genetic scientists, points out that religion is a form of child abuse.

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.

Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence.”

From the tragic immediacy of suicide bombers in the Middle East, through to the long term scarring and suffering of adult survivors of religious child abuse it is implemented by all religions and Christianity is no exception.

Christian sects such as the Exclusive Brethren ostracise former adherents to their faith. They are prevented from any contact with friends or family still within the sect. This is nothing short of vicious and vengeful behaviour.

As a result of so-called "good intentions" and obedience to divine orders, untold suffering is inflicted on innocent, powerless children in many mainstream Christian homes, and schools. The Christian message of love has been distorted and twisted into a most insidious form of cruelty: the hurting and damaging of children in the name of God.

For example, telling little children that they’ll burn in hell for disobedience is particularly heinous. That’s not discipline its emotional blackmail.

I am surprised, no, disappointed that so far on this thread religious abuse hasn’t scored a mention.

BTW GrahamY

Are you having an attack of the pedantics?

Clearly Rainier meant ‘expendable’.

Are you as petty minded with your children as you are with your fellow posters/

hi all,
and RObert,

hi RO,

corporal punishment, I would make a wild guess...
is inflicted bodily harm

why we need as a society some discussion, on child hitting and belting, really assault....
if one reads the law correctly....
and a crime in australia

yep sometimes I am not clear,
but simply put, I mean anyone who belts a kid, in anger, and for no other reason than their own background, and or mental condition at the time

sadly I take very little notice of statistics, in any form....
but try and research if appropriate to my subject

re child abuse, and adult male and female abuse,
my experience is research, and some work related

sometimes I guess, society needs rules, and sometimes one needs
reminders
as is the DONT ABUSE KIDS media adverts

re religion ...mentioned by a poster

the assault laws, include INTIMIDATION, and emotional abuse....

parents of course, are the basic educators

any media that reminds people not to abuse others..... can only be good
for society in the long run

hope this is clearer...

JH

JH, much clearer thanks. I don't consider corporal punishment as necessarily inflicting bodily harm although it does inflict physical pain.

I've not heard the term used much for in family smacks, rather in the context of hitting (usually with an impliment such as a cane or long ruler) in institutional discipline. State schools have not been allowed to use hitting for discipline some time. Interestingly Queensland has this year changed the rules on physical restraint to give teachers greater scope to manage dangerous situations. That is a safety issue rather than a punishment issue.

When misused corporal punishment/smacking can inflict harm but I think that in all but the most extreme cases the real harm is the mental harm as with other forms of discipline gone wrong. The real issue is not the form disipline takes but the attitude and skills of the adults attempting to administer the discipline.

If the capaign is broad based about appropriate care of children then I'll be pleasantly surprised, what I've seen so far suggests that will not be the case. Time will tell.

R0bert

Clearly Rainier meant ‘expendable’.

Exactly, thanks JR.

Well,if you meant "expendable", that's a pretty extreme thing to say Rainer, because I can't think of a time in history when children have been more protected, and when the definition of childhood has encompassed such a wide range of ages.

Here here Graham.

A study on allegations of clerical sexual abuse of children sent a survey to various religious places collecting data on priests accused of sexually abusing children.

A few hundred of the original priests nominated had to be removed from the data because the allegations they cited related to alleged victims who were over 18 at the time. The fact that many people would include over 18 year olds in a survey relating to children points to the broad concept people now have of children.

Ranier, RObert,
excuse my ignorance but I wonder how these foster families are being examined for suitability. Are foster families not probed in the same manner as families applying for adoption? Ranier I like the way you refer to these two groups (elders and children) as ‘book ends of life’.

StG,
I think that every couple expecting their first child could be presented information on positive parenting as part of the prenatal classes they attend (or supposed to attend) together anyway. Courses like this could be open to any parent who would be interested and hopefully the numbers of parents using positive parenting would vastly increase over the years. Neighbourhood centres, baby health centres and schools would be examples of venues where free courses could be held.

JHH,
yes good point, media reminders do eventually sink in- we have seen some results in other areas like anti- tobacco and anti-aids campaigns and ATM there is an ‘organ donation’ campaign running because organs are in very short supply in Australia.

So there is a good chance that an anti-smacking campaign will have an effect as well. It is also true that even though it is not genes that carry down child abuse, it is certainly a pattern passed on from one generation to the next and we know that cycles can be broken and information and education is the best way to do it.

continued

Johnny Rotten,
thank you for bringing up Religion as a form of abuse. I was keeping the subject till later :)

I agree that religion can be a form of or an excuse for child abuse depending how fanatically and fundamentally it is being conveyed to children. (Spare the rod and spoil the child!)

The Exclusive Brethren are my favourite sect to bash as they are deliberately misleading children. I have no respect for this sect (or cult).
Not only do they mislead children, they DENY them a tertiary education.

Their EB schools are even being rewarded for misleading children and withholding information by Government funding and tax cuts.

I don’t have high regards for the Private faith school system, but the EB school really tops them all!
EB children are not even allowed contact with children that are not EB members. They don’t read newspapers or listen to the news, in fact TV and radio and all media are forbidden (it's evil!)- something that our State schools encourage so I am not sure how the education department can justify funding them.
I'm not even talking about whathappens to children of EB parents who separate where one of the parents gets excommunicated! What a mess!

And what about Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny their children blood transfusion? I don’t mind if they use alternative treatments, but when these don’t proof effective I would say that letting a child die while there is a perfect and simple life-saving solution is unacceptable.

GY, its all reletive, must make the time one day to come get you and take you out to my little school in south briz,

That'd be interesting. I'd like that.

Celivia, I'm not close enough to it to know how the screening works but have gathered some impressions about the types of issues which are likely to contribute.
- No screening process is perfect.
- If it's like some other government organisations in QLD funding is probably required for glossy brochures, management performance pays and dealing with the crisis which make the papers.
- The kids needing foster care are often already traumatised, that may be externalised by significant behavioural issues meaning that a limited number of families are willing and able to take on their care. It's a big ask to have someone living in your home who is angry and hurting and who will lash out unexpectedly.
- It can have a significant impact on employment if you routinely have to leave work to attend to a child who is creating an incident at school. Likewise to take the time to deal with the other issues involved.

R0bert

I've posted this on the Nanny state article as well but the Courier Mail had a relevant article today. Some might find it interesting.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21579659-27197,00.html

R0bert

RObert, what an excellent article! I am glad that it addressed smoking in cars with children because this is very worrying.

I’ve always found it such a cliché when people use the term ‘nanny state’ in relation to child protection. Obviously, if a big group of parents are irresponsible and abusive then the states need to take over. Children need protection and if the state has to act as a ‘nanny’ so be it.

We need laws to protect our children, whether it is about the speed limit in school zones, smoking around children in cars, or smacking children. A few weeks ago in a shopping mall I saw a mother smacking her little 2 year old on the bottom for falling! Smacks for FALLING!

These laws need to be backed up by clear, hard-hitting TV/media campaigns to ensure the message will sink in so there will be less reason to enforce them.
Unfortunately, policing and enforcing penalties seem like an almost impossible job and many parents will still get away with it.

About fostering families, I can imagine that there are a lot of difficulties for carers. Because being a carer is not financially rewarded it doesn’t attract professionally trained or skilled people, however well-meaning and loving most of these people may be. It’s hard to deal with difficult children and situations. I have the impression that once one becomes a foster parent, one is not well supported or monitored or supervised.
I believe that this sector could do with resources for training carers. I read somewhere a while ago that foster carers numbers are in decline, while the number of children in need of care is increasing.

I wonder what new plans there are to improve this neglected sector- obviously children are suffering and they should be a priority. If their parents can’t cope with life (and receive no help or training) and there is not much incentive and assistance for foster families, then this is a recipe for child abuse. In fact it looks like foster carers are hardly valued - no wonder the reduction in numbers

Celivia, I think a part of the frustration with the Nanny State thing comes from the bit that the government so often gets it wrong for the children in it's care and then tries to tell others how to live. As I mentioned earlier (this thread or another) the canings I recieved at school were generally misplaced whereas when I got smacked at home it was done with more care and responsibility.

Rainer mentioned kids being taken out of bad situations and placed in worse situations. The institutional harm done to kids in years past is very distressing.

We also regularly hear politicians talking about holding parents accountable after teenagers have done something particularly damaging to public assets, the same politicians who seem to stay strangly quiet about schemes which provide financial incentives to teenagers to move out of home if they don't like their parents restrictions.

From my perspective there is also the suspicion that they will target just one area (smacking) out of what I percieve to be an emotional response rather than the result of serious research into needs and priorities.

R0bert

RObert,
Yes, I too feel the frustration that the government often gets it wrong and then tries to tell others how to live. I was looking at the nanny state thing a bit differently. (Did you say there is a discussion on topic this somewhere?) I'll explain.

I don’t really want to disregard a good idea just because it comes from a crap source. I look at the idea for a campaign against child abuse as an idea on its own, not connected to the source of the idea.
A campaign which (hopefully) provides information that will help parents to become more aware that there are more positive and effective ways of dealing with child raising difficulties than smacking them is, in my view, a good idea.

Yes, our child protection system is ineffective and needs urgent attention; of course you are right to say that this is more of a priority and that just targeting one area (smacking).
I don’t disagree with any of this, but in addition I think that spending just $2.5 million on an anti-smacking campaign is something positive because it will more likely than not (knowing that past campaigns that have been successful) help a percentage of children grow up in a more child-friendly environment.

I don’t believe that running this campaign will take away from finding solutions or affect the way the child protection system is working. If the government is willing to do something about the child protection sector, the campaign won't be an obstacle to work on this.

I look at it as two separate issues and both need attention. One is a much more difficult and costly job to fix than the other, but both need to be fixed.

Celivia, attitudes to this probably depend on how bad you perceive smacking to be. I'm somewhat in favour of it as a last resort tactic rather than a never do. I've also seen and heard to much of kids who consider themselves bush lawyers, they quite defiantly inform adults of their rights as they continue dangerous behaviour (you can't touch me and I can do what I like).

If the campaign is not done right it may just make that situation worse with kids who want to test boundaries (or who are suffering from PITAS - Pain In The Arse Syndrome) making it that much harder for adults trying to raise them to do so.

Kids are not subject to the same consequences as adults, nor should they have the same rights. They needs rights and protections which meet their needs and one of those needs is to have effective boundaries otherwise with some kids we end up with adults with no regard for others and unable and unwilling to moderate their behaviour.

I suspect that the campaign may do real harm if it's a prohibition message rather than an appropriate use message.

R0bert

Celivia

Love your work and would love to meet you, but you're married yes? Hopefully, No? Thinking of divorce? Sorry, but you're one of the most intelligent women posting here and I can't help myself sometimes....

Extraordinary, that a topic about corporal punishment, which many believe IS child abuse (note how many who think its OK to smack, were themselves smacked as kids?) has so little discussion on what truly is abusive. That fully grown adults think it is OK to wack someone a fraction of their size and strength, is appalling.

But what is truly woeful is the scant attention on religious abuse. Of course it has not escaped my notice that this topic was authored by a Christian, who remains in favour of hitting his children. Maybe other posters are too cowed to dare disagree, Gra-Gra is very pedantic as Rainier would attest. (BTW class move, Rainier, inviting the big man of OLO over for some edification).

On the subject of corporal punishment seemingly supported by the religious I have to ask: what would Jesus do?

Somehow, I can't see Him being all that big on hitting the defenceless. No doubt some bible basher will cherry pick some obscure reference to 'prove' that Jesus was into child abuse. Hmmmm. Now that would be interesting. And explain all those Catholic priests.....

All corporal punishment teaches is that violence is appropriate. How many thugs got their start in violence from demos by their dad or mum?

BTW R0bert, for someone who loves to protest the violence he received at the hands of his ex, I am astounded that you find no problem with hitting your son.

Guess this just proves that violence breeds further violence.

The simple truth is that rules, boundaries and values can be set without use of violence. Those who succumb to it are short on patience, long on self-importance and devoid of respect for the well-being of others.

Should our taxes be spent on outlawing corporal punishment?

No.

Our money would be better spent on education encompassing anger management, negotiation skills and the like.

THE tension between US movie-star exes Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger erupted when an angry phone message from Baldwin to his daughter was made public.

LISTEN TO this jerk go off at an 11 year old.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21589704-7642,00.html

Rainier, the worst aspect of that recording is that it was apparently leaked by the mother as part of her battle with the father. There's abuse alright, but the mother would appear to be the one most guilty. Imagine using your daughter like that! It's a pretty good example of what I was talking about. Some want to criminalise a tap on the bottom, while excusing behaviour which is much more mentally scarring.

Obviously, Ireland wasn’t looking forward to contact with her dad because it wouldn’t have been the first time he was verbally abusive. Who could blame her for switching off her phone?
Will she look forward to her father’s visit after his threat to straighten her out? No, of course not.
The man is out of control and needs to be straightened out himself.
I feel deeply sorry for the girl that she is caught in the middle of two fighting, crazy adults.

GY
Who wants to criminalise a tap on the bottom but to excuse verbal abuse- not me!
Countries, which have banned smacking, banned it because it is very hard to draw a line of what is abuse and what is not.
It would be too hard to police- to allow some forms of smacking and disallow other.
The message that comes with smacking is that it’s OK to use violence to solve problems.
Smacking is unnecessary because there are positive parenting methods- which should be promoted. I am hoping the campaign will focus on this.


I find it frustrating that some of you still think that if you don’t slap or smack children, they will have no boundaries, no regard for others, run wild, cause riots etc. This is caused by bad parenting. Refraining from using physical punishments does not equate bad parenting. Not smacking does not mean ignoring bad behaviour.

RObert,
you thought that your parents' punishment of your behaviour was justified but not all children think that.
My husband’s parents smacked him and he hated them for it.

JR,
thank you, you’re funny…but I’m off the shelf, mate ;)
You’re making a great point about Jesus- something for the Christians to think about. I wonder what their answer to your question will be...
Indeed, education about positive parenting is of uttermost importance and anger management is, so it seems, badly needed.

We are, as a society, all responsible for the treatment of our future citizens in our communities. Do we prefer that our future citizens are being raised in safe, non-violent homes?

GY, nothing there I would not disagree with, especially in terms of using the recording [and thus the child] for reasons of spite and legal points scoring. What is not revealed is whether or not the child allowed to answer the phone by the mother – thus frustrating the father. That he spoke to this 12 year old like she was a dog reveals it all.

And this proves that in this case both parents are equally guilty and don't deserve custody rights at all.

We spend far too much time arguing about the respective property rights we as adult have over children without examining the inherent rights of children to declare what they want.

From my perspective the . . . child [does] not become; it is becoming itself that is a child – I see these rights to declare as rights that belong to the beings they are in the present, rather than to the adults they will become.

Johnny Rotten, maybe you are missing the point. My ex had no responsibity to discipline me. Her hitting was done in anger and was about her own wants rather than my, her own or others safety.

I don't particularly like smacking, rather I see it as a tool that can be more easily managed than some other discipline tools in very difficult situations. It's a tool that should be in the bottom of the toolbox, only dragged out where the other options available at the time appear to be a higher risk to the child or others.

As Celivia points out it can be difficult to judge betweeen discipline and abuse with smacking but I find that it is easier than with some other forms of discipline. Emotional abuse or even reinforcement are even harder to judge.

It requires self control and judgement on the part of the parent as do all other forms of discipline.

I heard the excerts of Alec Baldwin's message and would agree with fairly much all of the comment I've heard on it so far. What he did was inexcusable and so was making the tape public.

Is that the way he deals with life normally? Some comentators suggest so. Is this the result of the stress of a bitter custody dispute with the child being used as a pawn in the dispute? The release of the tape might suggest that.

I'd disagree that the release was worse than the initial act except for the aspect that the release probably took time and was therefore more likely to be a deliberate strategic act rather than someone having a bad moment.

Regardless of what leads up to it adults need to make responsibe choices where their kids are concerned.

As you close your post with the comment regarding money being spent on anger management and the like let me close mine with a hearty endorsement of that sentiment.

Robert

Ranier,
“I see these rights to declare as rights that belong to the beings they are in the present, rather than to the adults they will become.”
Beautifully said! I had to think about it for a little while but it makes perfect sense.
The present child, indeed, is what needs to be valued. The future of the child, or the future person the child will become, will fall into place automatically when the present child is taken care of properly and peacefully.
The future person only exists in our mind, the child is ‘here and now’.
This is one of the smartest statements about children I have ever read.

In general, and partly to RObert,
Even though a smack on the bottom may be acceptable from a parent’s point of view, we need to think about the physical violence/discipline issue from the child’s POV.
Children do not automatically differentiate between different kinds of abuse, e.g. one form of abuse (adult abusing another adult) is criminal, socially unacceptable and wrong while another form of abuse (adult smacking child) is lawful, socially acceptable and right, even encouraged by some!

Keep it simple for children: Smacking, slapping, being violent towards other people is abuse and is always wrong. If a child sees that her/his parent is being abused by the other parent, and then the abused parent hits the kid, then what message gets across to the child?
S/he will believe that hitting people is the right thing to do and may, for that reason, may make aggression part of her/his life.
Parents should set an example.

The only reason parents feel they ‘need’ to have available the tool of smacking in their toolbox is because they ‘think’ they need it- because they lack proper parenting skills or lack patience.

In my opinion, physical abuse automatically includes emotional abuse. What about losing trust?

The fact that psychological and emotional abuse (even without physical abuse) are unacceptable and even harder to judge than physical abuse itself doesn’t mean that nothing should be done about physical abuse.

Besides: Smacking increases pedophile abuse risk.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21594731-2,00.html

Celivia, I still don't see any good reasons for singling smacking out. Pretty much every argument against smacking can either be applied directly to or has a close parallel with other forms of discipline.

I may be less bothered by the physical aspect because I tend to regard emotional abuse/assault as a greater risk than physical abuse/assault (or at least the really bad physical abuse leaves marks). I know there are exceptions and it's not clear cut and agree that physical abuse also delivers emotional abuse.

The important bit is that parents (and others) are consistent and caring in their discipline. I'd much rather see the focus on good parenting skills rather than on smacking. If that results in smacking never being needed then well and good.

R0bert

RObert,
I also would rather see ALL forms of abuse to be targeted equally.
Preferably, there should be a public education campaign, which, like you said, should focus on good parenting skills rather than merely on smacking.

The only reason I can imagine that the campaign focuses on smacking rather than on the other forms of abuse is that physical abuse is more obvious, more recognisable and therefore easier to target.
I am nevertheless glad that ‘something’ is being done, that they are starting somewhere in this big jungle of abuse. I hope this campaign is a first step.

I don’t call any form of spanking a reasonable form of discipline. Light spanking might not directly cause bodily harm, but its purpose is to cause a child pain.
Discipline does not have to include any form of abuse. If smacking is allowed there is the danger of escalation as well.
I’m positive that a lot of severe child abuse cases started off as mild ‘punishments’.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I don’t know the content of this campaign, but I am hoping that it is not *just* a warning not to smack children but that it includes some information on positive alternatives, or directs the parents to educational resources to help them with their parenting.

It would be great if there could be a free helpline for parents who need to discuss the problems they have with discipline and misbehaviour; one that advises and supports parents 24/7.

The campaign is a good first step in making parents aware, but this needs to be elaborated on and backed up by education and limitless support for parents who need it.
Or perhaps I am too idealistic.

I don't think a gentle smack in the first instance is psychologically damaging at all. For instance, a child reaching for power point. I do admit that my children have an uncontrollable aversion to electricity.

I think smacking can be an excellent way of developing trust. RObert try this with your son, that's if he is old enough, stand eyeball to eyeball and let your son slap you on the cheek, now you slap him, now he slap you and keep going at this. I do this with my son to warm up sometimes and he or I wouldn't do it unless there was complete trust. We are both adults. Faack off - am too.

Now that’s the bogan parenting program. Oh don’t forget that when he turns 18 he has to down a jug of Guinness in one go or his best mate gets to punch him in the balls. Maybe if some men (and women) knew what pain was they wouldn’t be so keen to inflict it to control others. Maybe if some men knew how to control a punch they’d realise you can settle someone without hurting them.

I also disagree with the idea that a parent can’t be a friend. I think psychologists who think that being a friend with your child is wrong because it suggests a pleasing attitude and an inability to draw boundaries is just new-age pap. I think you should cultivate a friendship with your children in the true sense of the word. We are always Mum or Dad and every person needs to know what a true friend really is - someone who refuses to “walk away” . http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5624#78389

My experience tells me that using violence (especially in schools) to control only produces children determined to jack the system. It only instils defiance or fearfulness. Parents who are firm and fair and only smack when absolutely necessary –not as an ongoing day-to- day method because they are too indifferent (or short tempered) to be bothered with an explanation – usually have children who listen and respond in a positive way.

Celivia the opposite of being idealistic is inauthenticity. The opposite of idealism is corruption. I think therefore I think I am thinking that I am thinking thoughts that I think are correct. I am correct to think that they are my authentic thoughts therefore my idealistic thoughts are open to corruption from forces seeking to control my authenticity and thus corrupt my thinking. That’s what happens when you indulge in too much smack me/smack you with your offspring.

Rainer. Can relate to teacher violence. Just made me fight harder at school. Home was heaven. Mum and Dad firm and fair (looking back) and couldn't catch me when I was naughty anyway.

Ronnie, good to hear someone else knows how it makes you into a rebel and then they blame you for being one. its a cycle this violence..

Ronnie, "Parents who are firm and fair and only smack when absolutely necessary –not as an ongoing day-to- day method because they are too indifferent (or short tempered) to be bothered with an explanation – usually have children who listen and respond in a positive way. "

Completly agree.

R0bert

Rainer should feel very special,rather oppressed,since Grahamy is very patient and spends much time laborously addressing your short comings.

Rainer we do not agree but if you were in need,myself and many others of the "right wing ratbags" would assist.Most people will naturally help those in real need,but we all must basically fend for ourselves.

People being on full time welfare,no matter what their culture are really in a state of decay.

Someone must do the work of cleaning,policing,teaching etc.If individuals want to aspire to something more,then they must do the necessary work to achieve those goals.