S. 59
After being a drafter of Ministerial correspondence, I'm just not the type of person who writes or emails politicians. However, I found myself sending out an email this morning on the repeal of s. 59 bill from this website.
What finally made me do something was the stuff on the front page of the Dominion Post this morning. Children being given "time off" from their Christian school to march and wave placards supporting their parents' rights to hit them. Quotes from said children like "If someone truly loves his children he will discipline them according to God's word, which is with the rod. If you don't, you hate them".
What rot are these children being fed? For a start, the rod of scripture is a metaphor for guidance, not beating. That is, the shepherd uses the rod to guide his sheep, not to whack them. (Otherwise the whole "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" thing would be a little weird). And I just cannot reconcile the notion of a compassionate and loving Jesus with showing love through physical discipline.
I never like seeing children at political rallies anyway - in many instances, it's just manipulative and ethically dodgy.
I can understand people being opposed to the bill for reasons like practicality, "social engineering", or concerns that we should be spending out time on things that directly result in child abuse, rather than the more symbolic legislative gestures. But I just can't understand getting so upset about having this "right" taken away that you would spend $40 000 on advertising campaigns, march on the streets, or make such jaw-dropping statements in Parliament like "I smacked my children and I'm proud of it".
Being the parent of three pre-schoolers, I can well understand "I smacked my children because I was just so mad and so tired and they had tried my patience to its limits". I don't think anyone is in a position to judge this (except perhaps the aforementioned Jesus!). And there is a fine line between physical discipline in the form of smacking, and forcefully putting a child into time out, for example. What I can't understand though is how smacking would make anyone proud.
The thing is, I don't really see what the fuss is about. Right now, every bar room brawl doesn't result in a court appearance. Neither does every punch up on a rugby field. The bill simply extends legal protection against assault to children - as the law already provides for adults and animals. Most of the "dreadful" scenarios being painted as what might happen as a result of this law can already happen under the current law (which doesn't provide for carte blanche physical discipline, merely a defence for "reasonable" behaviour).
Anyway, off the soapbox for me. The vast majority of parents in this country genuinely want to do what is best for their children. And most of us get by by being "good enough", rather than perfect.
What finally made me do something was the stuff on the front page of the Dominion Post this morning. Children being given "time off" from their Christian school to march and wave placards supporting their parents' rights to hit them. Quotes from said children like "If someone truly loves his children he will discipline them according to God's word, which is with the rod. If you don't, you hate them".
What rot are these children being fed? For a start, the rod of scripture is a metaphor for guidance, not beating. That is, the shepherd uses the rod to guide his sheep, not to whack them. (Otherwise the whole "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" thing would be a little weird). And I just cannot reconcile the notion of a compassionate and loving Jesus with showing love through physical discipline.
I never like seeing children at political rallies anyway - in many instances, it's just manipulative and ethically dodgy.
I can understand people being opposed to the bill for reasons like practicality, "social engineering", or concerns that we should be spending out time on things that directly result in child abuse, rather than the more symbolic legislative gestures. But I just can't understand getting so upset about having this "right" taken away that you would spend $40 000 on advertising campaigns, march on the streets, or make such jaw-dropping statements in Parliament like "I smacked my children and I'm proud of it".
Being the parent of three pre-schoolers, I can well understand "I smacked my children because I was just so mad and so tired and they had tried my patience to its limits". I don't think anyone is in a position to judge this (except perhaps the aforementioned Jesus!). And there is a fine line between physical discipline in the form of smacking, and forcefully putting a child into time out, for example. What I can't understand though is how smacking would make anyone proud.
The thing is, I don't really see what the fuss is about. Right now, every bar room brawl doesn't result in a court appearance. Neither does every punch up on a rugby field. The bill simply extends legal protection against assault to children - as the law already provides for adults and animals. Most of the "dreadful" scenarios being painted as what might happen as a result of this law can already happen under the current law (which doesn't provide for carte blanche physical discipline, merely a defence for "reasonable" behaviour).
Anyway, off the soapbox for me. The vast majority of parents in this country genuinely want to do what is best for their children. And most of us get by by being "good enough", rather than perfect.
Labels: Thoughts
posted by Mary at 10:57 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home