Children's Rights in New Zealand
As some of you will know, I used to be on the board of Parents Centres New Zealand for several years. While I was involved there, we finally managed to finish the internal debate around the repeal of Section 59 of the crimes act, and to publish our viewpoint that the excuses in this legislation are not appropriate for the kinds of child-rearing practices which we considered acceptable in New Zealand.
Children in New Zealand should have the right not to be assaulted by their parents.
A couple of years ago the legislative world caught up with that viewpoint, and legislation was passed which changed the scope of section 59.
Now, it seems, some minority groups want to go back to return us to an age when parents are entitled to assault their children, and there will be a national postal referendum in August, with a particularly weaselly worded question, and these groups will use the response to that question to justify a lot more than that question asks.
New Zealand's current legislation regarding parental control of children allows parents scope to discipline their children, without providing them with an excuse against an assault charge if they use excessive force.
So please vote 'Yes' to the referendum on child discipline, when you see it, and please encourage everyone you know to do likewise.
![[D]](/images/tag_delicious.png "Submit to Del.icio.us"){kind=small}
![[Digg]](/images/tag_digg.png "Submit to Digg"){kind=small}
![[FB]](/images/tag_facebook.png "Set status on Facebook"){kind=small}
![[R]](/images/tag_reddit.png "Submit to Reddit"){kind=small}
![[SU]](/images/tag_stumbleupon.png "Submit to Stumble Upon"){kind=small}
![[Tweet]](/images/tag_twitter.png "Set status on Twitter"){kind=small}
won't anybody think of the children!?
"child-rearing practices which we consider acceptable in New Zealand."
I've heard those weasel words used in Australia too, and I think you'll find "we" isn't an accurate assumption.
#$%^& grammar :-)
Sorry, I miswrote that: It should have been "we considered" (and I'll fix it in a moment, too). The "we" in this case was a plebiscite of Parents Centres members, representing the membership at large, following a very laborious and structured process of voting, wording adjustment and making statements and so forth which has to be seen to be believed.
Mediating any kind of reasoned agreement from a room full of 300-odd people is interesting and an experience in itself, and I'm pleased to have taken part in it on a number of occasions. The statement that PCNZ issued about the repeal of Section 59 back in 1999 or so was by far the largest and longest of those experiences, but also the most rewarding.
And of course I don't expect that I speak for everyone, but I would like to see the world evolve away from violence, rather than towards it. Disapproval of it is a good start.
I guess ...
we'll see who the minority group is.
My money is on the minority group being those who wanted to criminalize parents who give children light smacks as discipline. It was a cowardly arrogance that there wasn't a referendum prior to the law. So lets see how this plays out.
BTW - No parent has been able to truly assault children legally - and confusing a light smack on the back of a hand with assault is quite perverse.
But, we'll see.
Minority groups
I'm quite sure that the set of people who care deeply about this issue is the real minority group. Whether they care about it in the direction I do, or in the direction of the religious right.
I don't see any reason to normalise aggressive punishment behaviour. The wording of the referendum is plainly stupid, suggesting that "normal parenting uses smacking for correction" is no definition of normal that I want to be a part of.
In fact prior to the law change there were some horrendous cases where the exceptions in the law were used to escape conviction from assaults involving broken limbs and worse. A lot more than a 'light smack' - whatever that means.
Cheers,
Andrew.