Sue Bradford resigned

My issue with the anti smacking bill, wasn't that I should be allowed to smack my kids, its more to do with the govt telling me how I should raise my children. What right do they have to tell me how to parent.

They took what was a matter for a Judge to decide, and made it the govts decision.   It was about removing 'reasonable force' as a defence in the Crimes Act. The media to some extent made 'smacking' the same as 'reasonable force' when it seemed obvious to me, that the people that got off due to 'reasonable force' were doing a lot more than smacking their kids.

The anti-smacking legislation has made NZ a country of people who would rather ring the authorities than help a parent who's trying to control his kids - which was the situation with the guy who grabbed his sons ear, while trying to prevent the other going in the Avon river, why didn't the person who dobbed him in help instead.

becky wrote: Im sad she has gone too she has done some great things esp the breastfeeding Mums in prison bill. Also have to agree with the anti-smacking there are other ways that are more productive to discipline. Imo I also think it is about role modelling too how can we teach our children not to hit and then turn around and do it to them.

Do these babies actually live in the prison?

Yep they live with their mothers it used to be six months but has been extended to two years. There has to be a special parenting agreement signed with conditions and the mum has to want the baby. It some cases it has made the Mums decide to change their lives for the better

lemongirl wrote: She managed to get three personal bills through the house: section 59, abolishing youth rates and a bill allowing mothers to keep their children with them in prison to breastfeed, That's huge, most MPs never pass a personal bill.

Love her or hate her - she did acheive more than most MP's which is an achievement.   Shame more MP's don't seem to make much impact.

Essjay wrote: It is NOT an "anti smacking" bill. How embarrassing, that as the rest of the world seems to move forward, once again New Zealand seems to want to clamber backwards.....only made more internationally shameful when such protest is taken in context with our disgraceful non accidental injury and child murder incidents.

*sigh*

But it's completely ok to put a child into jail for two of the three MOST critical learning years of their life with these aforementioned child abusers and murderers, because their Mother was an idiot and ended up in jail? Just because she "wants them", I for one think you should have thought about wanting your children before ending up in jail in the first place.

Thats a brilliant way to brake the cycle!

Lets just "normalise" jail as a way of life for the children of our nation and take them away from all their family EXCEPT their Mother just because she can make milk?

IMO that is shameful!

Well said, Lilfatty!

I am obviously so out of the know as did not realise that this went on in NZ

Essjay wrote: It is NOT an "anti smacking" bill. I think that is the biggest discredit to Bradford, as portrayed by a lazy, talk-back style of journalism that this country seems to have adopted. It was the removal of a clause within the legislation that allows a parent to use "reasonable force" as a defence in child abuse case. As has been proven, no parent is being told how to raise their children, nor have any being unfairly accused. How embarrassing, that as the rest of the world seems to move forward, once again New Zealand seems to want to clamber backwards.....only made more internationally shameful when such protest is taken in context with our disgraceful non accidental injury and child murder incidents.

Extremely well said!!

I understand, though, that having their babies in jail with them gives many of these women reason to turn their lives around.

Also, Essjay, what you said was spot on. It is not an "anti smacking" bill. We can't change the culture of violence against children (in some circles) in this country but still allow caregivers the defence of reasonable force in child abuse cases.

I would never let my son hit someone, and so I would never hit him.

Edited by clare00

Can't say I agree about the babies in jail, but I think I'll have to do a little more research on that before I comment. I always like to look at both sides of the coin when it comes to politics. From what I gather, the anti-smacking bill came about because a lot of child abusers were avoiding prosecution by claiming that they were merely smacking their child. Bradford saw a lot of this and wanted that loophole closed. The Greens claim the bill is working, yet the New Zealand media aren't particularly forthcoming with those stats.

What I disliked about Bradford, was the way she went about it. She personally insulted everyday kiwi parents. In interviews she would refer to smacking as "hitting" or "abuse" and would imply that those who smacked were backwards and barbaric. Now, if you really want to change someone's opinion, I strongly suggest you don't insult them.

I was smacked as a child. I wasn't hit, I wasn't abused, I was smacked. I know the difference and I'm speaking from experience. But what constitutes a smack or abuse in my eyes, can easily be seen as something different to someone else. My husband, for example, was regularly belted with a leather strap. He was left with bruising, swelling, and red marks. That's abuse to me yet to his father, that was a smack.

I'm planning on raising my children without smacking. Not because I suffered from any sort of psychological damage as some anti-smackers will tell you. Being smacked as a child hurt nothing but my pride. And I do believe I had a lot more respect for my parents because of it. A lot more respect than many children of today have. But I'm going to try it because smacking is now seen as socially unacceptable. And that's my one and only reason.

However, I also know that all kids are different. I don't judge parents who choose to smack. Parents with uncontrollable children are often looked down on. As if it's their fault. Yet children's personalities never seem to come into it. Some children are well-behaved and some are not. I don't believe it's particularly useful to claim that if you can't control your children without resorting to a smack, you're a bad parent.

I also try and put myself in my mother's shoes. She raised 4 children and held down 3 jobs. Imagine getting a warning from your boss about being late (because of your kids). You're trying to get everyone into the car to go to Grandma's so you can go to said job. Yet they're playing up and won't do as they're told. You quite simply don't have 10 minutes to sit them on the naughty step. So what do you do?       

My gosh Treen , that was one of the best responses I've ever read .
Well written !