- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Mon 5th March 2007

Assault or Cruelty

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:42 am

Is a smack an assault or cruelty?

Assault on a child,

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who–

(a)Assaults any child under the age of 14 years; or

Cruelty to a child.

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, having the custody, control, or charge of any child under the age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treats or neglects the child, or wilfully causes or permits the child to be ill-treated, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

At what point does a smack become any; unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

It is no wonder other countries have come to grief over this stupidity. How will parents cope under the constant scrutiny of the state, while their friends and relatives become front page news for inappropriate child discipline?

4 Responses to “Assault or Cruelty”

  1. Jim Bailey says:

    Bevan et al,

    We are missing the point the BILL is MEANT to destroy the **Whole-NATURAL-Biological-FAMILY**

    It is designed to give the hirelings of the STATE the power to do just that for their own narcisistic purposes

    The Anti-Smacking Bill strengthens the so called **Care of Childrens** act to do the same thing

    Onward in Coalition – JIm

  2. Bevan Berg says:

    I agree with you that Jim. What I am trying to do is encourage people to put questions to our MP’s about the practical consequences of the legislation and how it is proposed that the state deal with these situations. In this particular case look at the wording of these two sections. What has been talked about so far is only that it is a defence to assault. Look at the wording of the cruelty charge and the five year sentence and figure how long it will be before someone is the victim of a test case for a cruelty charge.

  3. Rob Case says:

    It’s lost on me how Sue Beadford can promote this anti-smacking law as an anti-violence stance. Her methods of dealing with those who resist are the usual state ones: first the fine and public humiliation, failing that jail, damaged family and possible financial ruin. This is what anyone can expect who holds a counter view honestly and has the courage to maintain it.

    So forgive me for laughing out loud when she wags her finger at us while holding the big judicial stick behind her back.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar