[kall]

Right.

Today's news showing the various protests around the country prompted me to post this thread, along with a poll.

For those of you unaware, Green Party MP Sue Bradford currently has a bill before Parliament that will criminalise the smacking of children.

Over 80% of New Zealanders polled recently were opposed to the bill. Despite this, the Labour Government is looking to push the bill through, not as a Private Member's bill, but as a Governmental one.

Personally, I am very opposed to it. I was opposed to it 3 or 4 years ago, when the UN announced it would like all member countries to adopt it.

Basically - there are scumbags out there who beat their children so severely that they end up in hospital and die. This bill WILL NOT stop these people. To the best of my knowledge, beating the shit out of your kids is currently illegal, as is killing them.

Also, in my youth, I would have probably walked into a fire or sliced off a limb, had I not received a smack when I ignored the verbal warnings.

To criminalise that is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong.

[Neophis]

I am firm against this Anti-Smacking bill. As you said above, the people out there who beat there kids up, are still going to continue to do so. I was one of those nasty 'hate the world and everyone in it' teenages. I ran away from home, got in with the wrong crowd and abused my parent's verbally and physically. I was smacked and I turned into a pretty normal law abiding tax paying adult. Let Parent's raise there kids, as they see fit. The day the government steps in, to tell them how to do it, is a very sad one.

[Cobra]

I am against smacking kids. I think smacking does not help at all. But to put a mom in jail just because she smacked her out of control teenager is wrong. I definitely think we should call for harsher punishment for those who engage in severe beating of their kids.

[Sparklechick]

I'm against the bill. Let parents decide how to disclipline their children. As said above, the bill will NOT stop the parents who currently abuse their children. They WILL continue to do this. It's the innocent parents who lightly smack their kids to keep them in line that are going to suffer from this bill.

I got smacked when I was a kid and it hasn't affected me in any negative way. I've smacked my nieces when they've been bad too. They know that if they get a smack (it's never hard) it means I'm VERY serious about what I'm saying and that they're being VERY bad if they get a smack. They never do it again.

[Cobra]

I am not proposing a very harsh punishment for those parents who do a light smacking.

But, I will say it again, smacking does not help and it is not necessary in my opinion.

[NNY]

The anti-smacking bill has been designed to stop parents from educating their children with violence. I am a parent to an awesome 3 year old to begin with i used a smack as a telling off but after i got used to parenting and learned to communcate better with my son (as he did me), i found that smacking is absolutely unessacary as i could simply just talk to him.

I remember an outing where my father smacked my son for climbing up on a table and showing off. I thought if a child is regularly punished for misbehaving by smacking wouldnt they start to assiocate violence with some strange things in their adult lives. How could someone rationalize that the consequence of standing on a table would result in being hit?

Of there are extemptions where a smack could be used in context with the misbehaviour.

The bigger picture is that current level of violence in our society needs to be much less as we continue fight wars againist each other and entertain ourselves with violent media its seems to be an oppsession of the human race.

If we continue to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors we will not continue to evolve as a society or a species, but law and technology will not save us we must change our attitude towards issues like violence (and money and power to name a few others).

[kall]

As it turns out, a provision was placed in the bill to allow "smacking" under certain circumstances.

[kelsiana]

Hi, as a Mum of five children, I've hardly ever needed to smack my kids, and believe that as parents, we do at the least, need to take five before raising a hand to smack. But realistically, there are times when a light smack can save a child from greater harm. If used very rarely, a light smack does reinforce to a child, that they need to stop doing what they are doing or they may put themselves in danger. In this sense, I do not support the anti-smacking bill as, like already mentioned, innocent parents will be affected. But I do support the bill, when smacking is overused in the home. It should always be considered a last resort and not an instant remedy.

Raising five kids hasn't been easy, as they are certainly not angels, but neither am I, so I do keep this in consideration when disciplining my kids. Often their punishment may come in the means of writing lines, extra chores, loss of privilege ie no playing the playstation etc, often they or myself are encouraged to walk off their frustration or just chill out in a different room for a while. It's time-consuming, but it works, and with five children who all have a good self-esteem, positive attitude and active lives, it's definately worth the time it takes. But my parenting methods are a result of trial and error. As a younger Mum although I still didn't smack very often, I did fly off the handle a lot, with biting words that didn't help much either. Fortunately, I loved my children too much to risk hurting them, and wised up, finding better ways to deal with discipline. If the anti-smacking bill aims to educate parents of tried and tested alternative methods of discipline, which are not too hard to implement - then where's the harm in giving it a try?

[kelsiana]

For the better sake of children, I think they need to squash the "Anti-Smacking" bill and rename it. The problem presents itself in the wording, because not all who smack do so abusingly, so Sue Bradford's put herself at odds with many good parents who may smack on the odd occasion. She obviously wants to promote "Positive Parenting" perhaps we need to "up" advertising and education regarding that concept. Programmes like "Super Nanny" are great, BUT - she is not a parent herself. So we need more programmes with real parents, who are able to share their positive parenting experiences so others can learn better ways of dealing with discipline.