Well, I attended the protest yesterday. Yes, the s59 one. The DomPost this morning spent most of its space characterizing this as a march of "right wing Christian fundamentalists". That old bogeyman.
The protest was fairly peaceful, but the paper reported one arrest, an anti-smacking protester. The anti crowd that heckled were very rude and obviously had little in the way of manners regarding people's right to protest. Some were beyond abusive - one elderly women calling a grandparent a disgusting child-beater - spending a good 2 minutes in his face saying the most vile things. Manners is obviously not high on the list of the self-righteous "non-force" zealots, who prefer verbal abuse to tolerance of different opinions.
Criminalising a smack for the purposes of discipline is perhaps not much different than decriminalising homosexuality. The right of one adult to stick his dick into the poo-hole of another consenting adult is no longer a criminal offense. Now, some people may find that concept a little deviant, but the law decides that it shouldn't impose its own morality on what consenting adults do. Fair enough.
But suddenly, the use of a smack as a disciplinary measure is to be banned. There is no credible evidence that a smack used in discipline is harmful to children. Indeed, our generation grew up with an occasional smack and most people say it hasn't hurt them. Abuse may have, but a smack is not abuse. There can be arguments made for and against using a smack as a disciplinary measure, and it used to be that we all had the right to an opinion, and that the state would not mandate how we conducted our private affairs.
There are clear limits - any assault, abuse, etc could land people in court and their actions tested against the laws and judged by our peers. s59 says a parent can only apply "reasonable force" for the purposes of correction. That defence has been tried from time to time, and usually fails. The figures I've seen is its been tried around 22 times, and only succeeded 7 times in the last 15 years.
The jury weighed up the evidence, and on balance usually finds the defendant guilty. The cases where this isn't the case, have complicated issues behind them. Ones that don't reduce to a one liner that vindicates the left's totalitarian response to law making.
So Bradford says that "s59 gives parents the right to beat children the most appalling ways" That is a total lie and gross distortion. What Bradford is really trying to say that her ideology dictates that smacking is banned. They want to impose their will on others, even though there is no credible evidence that a smack is in any way abusive. It's just a very different perspective. Like being queer, perhaps.
So Bradford, Clark and a small group of anti-disciplinarians are not breaking new ground. They might as well be arguing the state has every right to look into the bedroom and ban homosexuality. Their supposedly liberal philosophy is really just another authoritarian ideology that happens to think a smack on the bum as a method of correcting bad behaviour is wrong, but legalizing the slavery inherent in prostitution or the freedom to engage in buggery is all fine and good.
Disclaimer: I generally don't care what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home, just as I respect the rights of parents to discipline their children to the limits of reasonable force. This is just a handy comparison to the Green's fake morality. The state shouldn't be making either of these situations illegal. That is does one and is trying to do the other shows gross hypocrisy and reveals an ideology that embraces authoritarianism.
The protest was fairly peaceful, but the paper reported one arrest, an anti-smacking protester. The anti crowd that heckled were very rude and obviously had little in the way of manners regarding people's right to protest. Some were beyond abusive - one elderly women calling a grandparent a disgusting child-beater - spending a good 2 minutes in his face saying the most vile things. Manners is obviously not high on the list of the self-righteous "non-force" zealots, who prefer verbal abuse to tolerance of different opinions.
Criminalising a smack for the purposes of discipline is perhaps not much different than decriminalising homosexuality. The right of one adult to stick his dick into the poo-hole of another consenting adult is no longer a criminal offense. Now, some people may find that concept a little deviant, but the law decides that it shouldn't impose its own morality on what consenting adults do. Fair enough.
But suddenly, the use of a smack as a disciplinary measure is to be banned. There is no credible evidence that a smack used in discipline is harmful to children. Indeed, our generation grew up with an occasional smack and most people say it hasn't hurt them. Abuse may have, but a smack is not abuse. There can be arguments made for and against using a smack as a disciplinary measure, and it used to be that we all had the right to an opinion, and that the state would not mandate how we conducted our private affairs.
There are clear limits - any assault, abuse, etc could land people in court and their actions tested against the laws and judged by our peers. s59 says a parent can only apply "reasonable force" for the purposes of correction. That defence has been tried from time to time, and usually fails. The figures I've seen is its been tried around 22 times, and only succeeded 7 times in the last 15 years.
The jury weighed up the evidence, and on balance usually finds the defendant guilty. The cases where this isn't the case, have complicated issues behind them. Ones that don't reduce to a one liner that vindicates the left's totalitarian response to law making.
So Bradford says that "s59 gives parents the right to beat children the most appalling ways" That is a total lie and gross distortion. What Bradford is really trying to say that her ideology dictates that smacking is banned. They want to impose their will on others, even though there is no credible evidence that a smack is in any way abusive. It's just a very different perspective. Like being queer, perhaps.
So Bradford, Clark and a small group of anti-disciplinarians are not breaking new ground. They might as well be arguing the state has every right to look into the bedroom and ban homosexuality. Their supposedly liberal philosophy is really just another authoritarian ideology that happens to think a smack on the bum as a method of correcting bad behaviour is wrong, but legalizing the slavery inherent in prostitution or the freedom to engage in buggery is all fine and good.
Disclaimer: I generally don't care what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home, just as I respect the rights of parents to discipline their children to the limits of reasonable force. This is just a handy comparison to the Green's fake morality. The state shouldn't be making either of these situations illegal. That is does one and is trying to do the other shows gross hypocrisy and reveals an ideology that embraces authoritarianism.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.