"Spank Not" in New Zealand Unpopular

[Warning: Link contains photo showing graphic violence & criminal behavior:] In New Zealand, 88 percent of those voting on a referendum on an anti-spanking law put in place by the Green Party in 2007 voted against the ban. A clause in the original law was inserted to give police discretion to not prosecute case of "inconsequential force" against children. Voters were asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?" The referendum is non-binding on the government.

In Amsterdam in early August, I was asked by a young Dutch father if I was opposed to spanking children. Apparently, from what I gathered, it is illegal in the Netherlands, and he was not happy about it. Watching his children, I could see why. I fail to see the problem with spanking. When properly applied, it works. As with so many things, it can be abused, but that is no reason for outlawing it. Allowing children to watch pornographic television, that's abuse. Many of those images will never leave the brain. I cannot remember any particular spanking I received as a child, though I received my fair share. There are no memories, no traumas relived. Just an aid in learning to control my behavior in certain situations, and not say certain things in other situations. Does the Green Party think spanking contributes to global warming?

Comments

[Hunter Baker]

When we had our first child, I actually considered not spanking. My wife wisely insisted it was a necessary method of discipline. Once he became large enough and mobile enough to put his will into action, I began to see that spanking was sometimes necessary, if for no other reason, to prevent him from harming himself. A government that bans spanking has lost touch with reality.

[Mr Gronk]

The law which was the subject of the referendum (even though it was not referred to explicitly - as a New Zealander, though presently living in the US, I voted in the ballot) was a bad law. Our Green Party is also known for its "socially liberal" views, which seem to occupy more of its time than environmental causes these days.

Myself, I'm not in favour of removing smacking from the parental toolbox; though I don't yet have kids, and maybe never will, and even if I do I may choose not to use it, I would like that to be my judgement about what's in my kid's best interests, and not something I'm compelled to do by law. The promise coming from New Zealand's government that "light smacks won't be prosecuted" rings somewhat hollow, when that could be overturned with the stroke of a pen by a change in Police prosecution guidelines, or even ignored by an overly zealous social welfare case worker acting on her own initiative.

In an interesting development, I hear on the grapevine that a Private Member's Bill has, as if by chance, just been drawn from the ballot which would, if adopted by Parliament, amend the criminal code to allow some limited forms of force to be used. It will be interesting to see what happens to that Bill, especially in light of the referendum result.

[Art Deco]

That 88% of the public rejects the law and the prime minister 'sees no reason' to repeal it is an indication of a cavern between elite and mass opinion and confidence on the part of the former that they can thumb their noses at the latter. What is distressing is that this cavern is manifest in a country with a population smaller than metropolitan Dallas.

Lynette Burrows pointed out some time ago (with reference to Sweden) the utility of these laws. They remove any barriers to the superintendency of family relations by social workers. I suspect the supporters of these laws, if carefully questioned, would reveal opinions of ordinary parents similar to those of William O. Douglas. IIRC, Burrows cited statistics to the effect that child seizures by state social workers were more common in Sweden than in Germany by a factor of 22. Social workers were constructing families for favored clientele on the ruins of other people's families. (And we do not have to ask who is the most favored clientele of all).

[Kyralessa]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? My wife and I spank our kid (with the flat of the hand, not with an object) in only two cases: If he does something that could physically harm himself (e.g. run out into the middle of the street), or sometimes if he physically harms others (e.g. hitting, kicking). For everything else, there are various non-corporal punishments, from losing a favorite toy for a day or two, to five minutes in the boring chair for relatively minor stuff. Once, when he wouldn't quit fooling around in church, his punishment was to leave church with me and not receive the Eucharist (we're Orthodox)...and let me tell you, he *hated* it. He was three or four years old at the time. He was exceptionally quiet and attentive the next week!

For many years my parents used spanking as the sole punishment for *everything*, and I hated it. There wasn't love in it. Oh, it wasn't abuse; it was just spanking (but with a belt, not a palm). And my parents did, and do, love me. But that love wasn't transmitted through spanking. I don't have any "spanking stories" to chuckle over.

And lo and behold, my kid is well-behaved (not perfect, but well-behaved) without it.

"No spanking" doesn't mean "no punishment of any sort". And using a variety of punishments means the ability to teach in other ways: If my wife or I lose our temper, then to our son's great delight, *we* get five minutes in the boring chair. It helps him see that many of the rules are for everyone, not just him.