![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I'm embarrassed to be a New Zealander right now
90% of the voters in a referendum think it's just fine to thump children. (And I'm linking to the Beeb story, since it's actually neutral and has the right facts)
Fuckers.
The context is that legislation was passed a couple of years ago removing the "parental defence" for assaulting (sorry, "smacking") your children. The context to that legislation was that NZ has one of the highest child assault rates in the world, with notable examples of children being killed by their parents (oh, of course that's bad, and there's no defence, obviously) down to kids being publicly assaulted with riding crops, hit in the face with closed fists, and the like. Under the previous law, the latter things were defensible! Regarding the "you shouldn't be locked up for smack on the wrist" arguments, the current legislation states that the Police have the discretion to not press charges if there is no merit in bringing the case to court.
Of course, the religious nutcases and the right-wing arseholes who think they should have the god-given right to do what they like to their children got all up in arms, as did a significant chunk of the "it never hurt me" contingent. Of course, you talk to these "never hurt me" kind, and there's always a story about when dad went a bit far with the belt, or mum knocked you flying out the door with a backhander. And, hur-hur, they "acted up" just as badly when their bum stopped hurting so much. Why do certain people think it's "funny" to tell stories about that kind of thing? It horrifies me every time I encounter it.
My mother tells a "funny story" about when we moved house once, and when she was packing up, she found no less than four wooden spoons hidden around the place. Apparently I must have hidden them; no prizes for guessing what her favourite "corrective implement" was. She and other family members thought the story was funny, at least. For some reason, I don't.
Anyway, a beautifully-worded referendum went out to the populace asking: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" And that's what the 90% voted "No" to.
Notice they didn't say "Should hitting your child be permitted under the law in New Zealand?" Notice they didn't define a "smack". Does it count if it's a "smack" with a belt? To the face? With the back of the hand? And what is "good parental correction"?
Given the backwards nature of the wording, there was quite a bit of confusion initially about if you're against hitting children, do you vote "No"? But one thing about all the debate around this debacle was that people quickly got the point of what "Yes" and "No" were supposed to mean in the context of the stupid question.
Anyways, it's a non-binding referendum, so what the govt might do about the legislation is fairly moot at present. But it disgusts the hell out of me.
ETA: The Christian nutjobs who lobbied for this referendum, and the language it uses, got funding from the US Christian nutjob organisation, Focus on the Family. What a surprise. And how amazing that certain groups mightily resent interference in their own country's borders, but have no compunction in exerting their religious and political colonialism overseas. Fuckers, again.
Fuckers.
The context is that legislation was passed a couple of years ago removing the "parental defence" for assaulting (sorry, "smacking") your children. The context to that legislation was that NZ has one of the highest child assault rates in the world, with notable examples of children being killed by their parents (oh, of course that's bad, and there's no defence, obviously) down to kids being publicly assaulted with riding crops, hit in the face with closed fists, and the like. Under the previous law, the latter things were defensible! Regarding the "you shouldn't be locked up for smack on the wrist" arguments, the current legislation states that the Police have the discretion to not press charges if there is no merit in bringing the case to court.
Of course, the religious nutcases and the right-wing arseholes who think they should have the god-given right to do what they like to their children got all up in arms, as did a significant chunk of the "it never hurt me" contingent. Of course, you talk to these "never hurt me" kind, and there's always a story about when dad went a bit far with the belt, or mum knocked you flying out the door with a backhander. And, hur-hur, they "acted up" just as badly when their bum stopped hurting so much. Why do certain people think it's "funny" to tell stories about that kind of thing? It horrifies me every time I encounter it.
My mother tells a "funny story" about when we moved house once, and when she was packing up, she found no less than four wooden spoons hidden around the place. Apparently I must have hidden them; no prizes for guessing what her favourite "corrective implement" was. She and other family members thought the story was funny, at least. For some reason, I don't.
Anyway, a beautifully-worded referendum went out to the populace asking: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" And that's what the 90% voted "No" to.
Notice they didn't say "Should hitting your child be permitted under the law in New Zealand?" Notice they didn't define a "smack". Does it count if it's a "smack" with a belt? To the face? With the back of the hand? And what is "good parental correction"?
Given the backwards nature of the wording, there was quite a bit of confusion initially about if you're against hitting children, do you vote "No"? But one thing about all the debate around this debacle was that people quickly got the point of what "Yes" and "No" were supposed to mean in the context of the stupid question.
Anyways, it's a non-binding referendum, so what the govt might do about the legislation is fairly moot at present. But it disgusts the hell out of me.
ETA: The Christian nutjobs who lobbied for this referendum, and the language it uses, got funding from the US Christian nutjob organisation, Focus on the Family. What a surprise. And how amazing that certain groups mightily resent interference in their own country's borders, but have no compunction in exerting their religious and political colonialism overseas. Fuckers, again.
no subject
As for physical discipline and kids, I feel the same way about it as I do about it being used on a dogs. It's all about the deliverer, which should give more people cause for pause than it does.
no subject
Heh, yes, due to some Unseemly Influence I've previously been exposed to, I made that exact comparison on a kiwi blog where people were discussing the issue. Not so much the more nuanced part about it being more about the deliverer, but the fact that if positive reinforcement works - and physical punishment hasn't been shown to work better - then why wouldn't you prefer that method as much as possible?
But you're right, it is about the deliverer and the fucked-up behaviour they want to hold onto and justify. It's the major component in why the people behind these campaigns disgust me.
no subject