Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

GG's Views On Smacking Kids Attack Family

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville, Wellington
PATRONS:
Sir John Kennedy-Good KBE QSO
Professor T V O'Donnell MD FRACP CBE
Marilyn Pryor
FOUNDER
Patricia Bartlett OBE

Governor-General’s Views On Smacking Kids Attack Family

PRESS RELEASE Monday 17 June 2002

The view that “smacking kids is assault”, expressed by the Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright in the weekend, is “quite erroneous” according to Rev. Gordon Dempsey, President of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards. Expressing the views of the Society’s executive committee, he said that Dame Silvia’s comments “were an attempt to cast doubt on the legality of smacking as a legitimate and lawful means of chastisement and discipline when used by responsible and loving parents. Section 59 of the Crimes Act gives all parents the right to use ‘reasonable force’ to punish their kids and it appears that Dame Silvia wants these parental rights removed.”

Cartwright, a former high court judge, has been reported in the Sunday Star Times (16 June, p.1) as having criticised “a quirk in the law that allows parents to smack their children.” In a break with the Governor-General’s normally independent stance, she told a Save the Children national conference in Wellington that “parents who smack their children could be committing a technical assault.”

Rev. Dempsey said, “it was disingenuous for a former high court judge to suggest that the vast majority of caring parents who occasionally smacked their kids for defiance and other serious transgressions, could be committing a technical assault. Such suggestions were erroneous in common sense and in law and had the effect of undermining the law which protected the rights of parents to certain freedoms relating to the choice of discipline of their own children.”

Cartwright went on to state: “If you are 18 months old and can’t speak yet, no one really knows whether your misbehaviour was so calculated, so deviant as to warrant the bruising and internal injuries visited on you as punishment.”

“This statement is fallacious” said Dempsey, “as it begs the question of whether violence, the illegitimate use of force, can be lawfully used to discipline children. It suggests that some might hold that inflicting bruises and internal injuries on an infant could be warranted if the misbehaviour was ‘so calculated, so deviant as to warrant’ it. In fact no responsible person would suggest such brutality could be justified under any circumstance. Furthermore, the law does not allow for it, and yet Cartwright states, ‘the line between physical punishment and serious assault was so blurred it did not really exist.’ Anyone with common sense can identify the fallacy in her argument”.

Cartwright went on to add: “If you were an adult, no matter how deviant your behaviour, you cannot be punished by another in such a way without the intervention of the law. But we can guess – no 18 month-old child could possibly deserve such a brutal physical assault.”

“She suggests in effect,” said Dempsey “that the public is so stupid that it cannot tell the difference between reasonable force in punishment and a brutal physical assault. Having erroneously asserted that ‘the line between physical punishment and serious assault’ is so ‘blurred’ that a distinction does not really exist, she suggests that reasonable physical punishment amounts to infant bashing. Has she not heard of common sense?”

Cartwright is reported as saying “violence begets violence”. Dempsey responded: “Few parents who use smacking sparingly would disagree with the plain meaning of this statement. However, Cartwright uses it as a catchcry against so-called ‘assaults’ by smacking, to at best call into question and at worst condemn, all responsible parents who sparingly use this form of discipline. She fails to distinguish between the transitory pain inflicted by a smack and grievous bodily harm inflicted as a result of the illegitimate use of force (violence). She also fails to point out the psychological damage inflicted upon many kids by parents who avoid smacking and resort to prolonged verbal abuse and unreasonable deprivations as a substitute.”

“What about the impact on children of the repetitive exposure of adults and young persons to brutal scenes of graphic violence, especially sexual violence?” asks Rev. Dempsey. “The Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, was quoted in a major article on censorship (NZ Herald, Dec. 1, 2001) as saying: ‘There are now journals and so on which pretty well define that for anyone with a propensity to sexual violence, that [propensity] will be heightened by exposure to sexually violent images.’ Increasingly, he notes, research is telling us how likely it might be for such sexually violent images to be injurious to the public good.”

When is Dame Silvia going to speak out on the avalanche of graphic violence and sexual violence that has invaded our public theatres, TV programmes and computer games, all under the banner of ‘entertainment’? One would think that one whose husband was the Chairperson of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and a member of the Film and Literature Board of Review, might occasionally step outside the ‘Governor-General’s normally independent stance‘ and comment on such matters.”

“The Society agrees with Dame Cartwright that the level of child abuse in New Zealand is ‘shocking’. However, abrogating the rights of decent-minded and responsible parents to discipline their children will do nothing to tackle this problem. It will only exacerbate it. The two private member’s bills which seek to outlaw smacking and which ‘continue to languish in the parliamentary ballot’ said Dempsey, “will be opposed by the Society should they ever come before Parliament.”

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Scoop 3.0: How You Can Help Scoop’s Evolution

Entering into its third decade of operation, the Scoop news ecosystem is set to undergo another phase of transformation and evolution.

We have big plans for 2018 as we look to expand our public interest journalism coverage, upgrade our publishing infrastructure and offer even more valuable business tools to commercial users of Scoop. More>>

 
 

Speaking Of Transport: Public Engagement On Wellington Scenarios

“Our work on possible solutions for Wellington’s transport future is ongoing, but has progressed to the stage where we’re ready to share our ideas with the public and seek their feedback to help guide our next steps...” More>>

ALSO:

Parental Leave: National's Time-Sharing Change Fails

National has proposed a change to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that would allow both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time, if that is what suits them best. More>>

ALSO:

Train Free Thursday: Workers Strike To Defend Terms Of Employment

"They signed up to these conditions a year ago when they got the contract for Wellington's rail services. Now they're trying to increase profits by squeezing frontline workers." More>>

ALSO:

Seclusion: Ombudsman Emphasises Importance Of Monitoring

Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero says that while there have been changes to the Education (Update) Amendment Act 2017 to prohibit the use of seclusion, the report is an important reminder of the importance of regular monitoring of schools. More>>

ALSO:

United Future History: "All Good Things Must End"

'We’re extremely proud of what we’ve achieved over the past 15 years, working alongside the government of the day, both National and Labour.' Mr Light told members on Monday. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The TPP Outcome, And The Hobbit Law

Somehow the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal has come lurching back from the dead – and as predicted in this column last week, the member countries gathered in Vietnam have announced a deal in broad principle, shunted aside until a later date the stuff on which they don’t agree, and declared victory. More>>

Agreeing To Differ: Greens Maintain Opposition To TPPA
“The Green Party has long opposed the TPPA. The new proposed deal, which came out of the weekend’s talks, still contains key ISDS concessions to corporations that put our democracy at risk, so our position remains the same,” said Green Party trade spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman. More>>

ALSO:

Monitoring Report: A New Chapter For Children’s Rights In New Zealand?

The Children’s Commissioner is calling on the country to embrace children’s rights to ensure their overall well-being. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured InfoPages

Opening the Election