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

Bradford pushes for child assault law change.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 3:18 pm Fri 27th January 2006

Green Party MP Sue Bradford says new research into physical punishment shows the importance of repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Link to stuff:,2106,3553608a6160,00.html

The socialist government can’t have peers making decisions about child discipline when it wants ownership and control over children. When is the state going to be up front about its legal agenda. No surprise that Sue Bradford’s private members bill coincides with the governments agreement with the united nations to repeal this law during 2005.


  1. The last NZ needs is laws to control Parents more and give the “Empire of Injustice” more teeth.

    The first things NZ Needs is Laws that Prosecute all who weaken Biological-Family.


    Comment by Jim Bailey — Fri 27th January 2006 @ 6:03 pm

  2. I wonder whether research has also been done to see how kids turn out in the long run if parents are not allowed to physically punish them for wrong doing?

    There was a time in NZ when there was very little crime..and it was a time when us kids were subject to physical punishment not just by parents but teachers as well.

    Does it follow that eventually in times of war the army will not be allowed to shoot deserters? Or no-one in this world will face the death penalty for heinous crimes, perhaps against children?

    I am trying to house train a kitten at the moment by the usual methods…rubbing its nose into its misplaced deeds and smacking it. I wonder whether a kitten can be trained to do its business in the proper place by talking nicely to it or depriving it of its favorite toy.

    I note that the kittens toilet habits have inproved and it still likes me to cuddle it and still sits on my knee…are ther parallels here?

    Comment by Morris Lindsay — Fri 27th January 2006 @ 7:23 pm

  3. I agree. There’s way more crime now than there was 20 years ago ( and that’s relative )

    Why try to fix something if it isn’t broken ?

    Comment by Moose — Fri 27th January 2006 @ 11:30 pm

  4. Bradford attempts to guilt trip NZers into banning smacking are stupid. She thinks making smacking illegal will reduce crime. Her attempts to use pseudoscience to ‘prove’ smacking’s bad disengenious crap.
    Here in S.Korea such idiocy as banning corporal punishment finds no place. Some parents here will actually ask teachers to administer it to thier children to discipline them into civilised adults.

    Pertinent facts related to this phenomenon should be noted.

    South Korea isn’t plagued with cases of child abuse.
    Indeed a child being severely assaulted by an adult is an extremely rare thing in South Korea. (Alas seemingly not a week goes by without some newspaper report of a kid being badly assaulted in NZ).

    Also S. Korea has a much lower crime rate than NZ. You can safely walk the streets anytime- anywhere, leave your house or car unlocked, leave a bag unattended for a while in a bustop or at the supermarket. It’s much more civilized than NZ is.

    It reminds me of England in the 1960s where if a boy or girl was wagging school and met the local bobbie, he’d literally boot thier arse, then take them to the school and tell them he’d be visiting thier parents home to talk to them that evening. When the bobby did so the parents would thank him for administering on the spot punishment.

    Such things seem a world away from Bradford’s dangerous PC garbage.
    Thank god I came here to escape her kind’s nonesensical propoganda.

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 28th January 2006 @ 12:25 am

  5. It seems that foresight is not something our leaders can comprehend. Even if that wisdom has been prevailent in our society ages ago, they seemed to have stamped it out. God knows why, but not me. Maybe changing something is, by default, assumed to be improving it.

    Comment by Moose — Sun 29th January 2006 @ 1:06 am

  6. Educated adults admitting in an open forum that, when it comes to discipline, their education fails them.

    Comment by dave — Fri 3rd February 2006 @ 3:16 am

  7. This is kind of alaming: does everyone here (except Dave) want to hit their children?

    Morris Lindsay, you should not bring up your kids as if they are cats. Cats can’t understand english, plus if your cat is bad you can simply throw it outside for the night and its fur will keep it warm. Kids need a lot more than that.

    Comment by Livus — Tue 7th February 2006 @ 2:35 pm

  8. This is kind of alarming. Does anyone apart from Dave want to mollycoddle thier kids?
    Educated adults admitting in an open forum that they want to try and persuade prelanguage toddlers with English language reasoning that certain actions are dumbassed and dangerous.
    Oh my God! LOL!

    Comment by Stephen — Sat 11th February 2006 @ 7:21 am

  9. I was walking on a city street the other day, when I witnessed a woman smack her kid.
    I stood and started watching the episode, which the mum took some exception to.
    If you are you using ‘reasonable’ force, you would have no difficulty using it in front of anyone, even a high court judge.
    If you are uncomfortable, it clearly is not reasonable.
    Also, we have lost sight of the meaning of words. ‘smack’ is not the same as ‘hit’, ‘beat’, ‘thrash’ etc.

    I would wholeheartedly support any legal definition of ‘reasonable’, including for example, no implements of any kind, no bruises ( a red make that lasts 1/2 an hour is not a bruise), cuts, blood, etc.

    But overarching all of this, is my golden recommendation for any seperated guy: don’t use physical punishment, as your ex might hold this in court against you.
    In my case, if that means a child who runs rings around me, so be it. If she ends up in jail, I’ll blame her mother.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 11th February 2006 @ 7:50 am

  10. Admitting wholeheartedly, yes. Have done so, it has worked, and any internet search will provide you with numerous other successful cases of such.
    If there are alternatives to “smacking”, why not give it a try. (Can’t spare your time?)
    You cannot prove to me or anyone else that yours is the only way to achieve such desired goals.

    My point, once again, use your education and move away from such tactics, as so many others are. I cannot find any information on international exoduses toward it. Quite the opposite, thankfully- even your beloved South Korea.

    Comment by dave — Sat 11th February 2006 @ 11:26 pm

  11. Dave,
    in Korea adults haven’t made any exodus away from smacking towards liberal parenting.
    It’s an accepted and practiced part of the culture here that’s existed for centuries.
    And the crime rate here is MUCH lower than NZ’s.
    I don’t expect you to understand as you’re not in Korea. I didn’t when I arrived here. I thought they were barbaric with thier smacking. How arrogant and culturally insensitive I was!

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 12th February 2006 @ 2:30 am

  12. I am in Korea, Stephen. I am teaching hundreds of children daily, and have very controlled classrooms without the use of “smacking”.

    I am also aware, being here, of the outrageous incidents of male teachers BEATING students (females included) with fists and more, and being caught on cell-phones doing so. Not surprising I suppose that it would eventually go there.
    This is why there is a movement away from, at the very least, letting others “SMACK” your children.
    Logic demands that yes, if we cut off hands of burglars, burglary rates will decrease. But, once again, nations aren’t moving toward more physical violence in order to reduce crimes.

    They are instead using their minds.

    Comment by dave — Sun 12th February 2006 @ 8:16 pm

  13. Whoa Dave!

    There is a HUGE difference between the physical beatings you are describing and the “smack” administered by a parent.

    The biggest issue here, from what I perceive, is that the State (in the form of Sue Bradford) is set on moving us one step closer to parents no longer raising their children other than in the manner proscribed by the State and, of course, consistent with the teachings of the State.

    Sounds like communist Russia.

    Tar-and-feather me if I’m wrong, but this doesn’t sound like a place someone who is “using their mind” would willingly go?

    Comment by Ethos — Sun 12th February 2006 @ 9:37 pm

  14. Dave,
    What bullshit!
    You must have a new world record as having by far the worst contract ever known for a foreighner teaching Korean kids. LOL! You claim to be ‘in Korea’ and ‘teach hundreds daily’.

    It’s simply not possible for legal and commercial reasons for anyone teaching English here to teach that many kids in a day.
    I don’t know of any private institutes where class sizes are larger than 10-12. Public schools may have as many as 40 in a class, but you’d need to teach 5 classes every day of those to merit teaching ‘hundreds each day’.

    I reckon the deterrent effect of some teacher’s light smacking means some of thier colleagues can smugly capitalize on such disciplining by claiming they don’t need to use such management of students, when in fact the work’s been done for them by thier fellow teachers with more nouse.

    Another point – sure there will always be the rare case of some teacher getting too heavy handed.
    However I must agree with others in saying that again you appear to be trying the old trick of exagerating to make your case, and thus I don’t trust you as being credible.

    Comment by Stephen — Mon 13th February 2006 @ 1:38 am

  15. It’s neither your approval nor endorsement that I seek.
    If I can get even one adult who reads this website to consider alternative methods of childrearing, I will consider dealing with you to be worthwhile.

    By the way, teaching takes place both inside and outside the classrooms. And, I will continue the education- sans exaggeration.

    Comment by dave — Mon 13th February 2006 @ 3:13 am

  16. ‘If’ being the operative word dave.
    However a hysterical nation who’s airline carrier exudes misandry treating it’s male passengers as potential kiddy molesters might just might be dumb enough to pull off supporting Bradford’s agenda.
    Then it’ll be false allegations made/on behalf of kids against parents feeding the DV industry even more men as anger management fodder. Guess which parent Dad or Mum would get the lions share of accusations made against them.
    The fem’s will be delighted I’m sure.
    The ensuing lack of trust and social cohesion will be just what NZ needs amidst an economic slowdown. LOL!

    As for teaching both inside and outside the classroom equating to ‘teaching hundreds’ each day – sophistry is no substitute for common sense and I still reckon you’re exaggerating despite your attempt to save face.
    Typical liberal tactics too IMO.

    Comment by Stephen — Mon 13th February 2006 @ 6:11 am

  17. Adendum.

    I fear like many others that Bradford’s criminalising parents is simply another strand of her socialistic big state agenda. It seems she and her ilk are keen to see the state expand yet further with it’s bloated cronyist bureaucracy interfering into more and more aspects of ordinary peoples lives.

    What is even more harrowing however is the prospect of the biological family being further supplanted by the state.
    That’s a very scary scenario indeed which proponents of anti-smacking should think deeply about.
    I notice news reports of a visiting scandinavian ‘expert’ extolling the virtues of Bradford’s bill and childless Clarke herself has chimed in efforts to soften folks up for the next social engineering push. Incidentally the marriage and fertility rate in Sweden has plumetted in recent years. Coincidence?

    Mark my words. If this thing goes ahead you can look forward to unparralelled levels of state intrusion (more social workers, psychologists, paralegals, lawyers and state ‘educators’) and everyone living under the grim shadow of accusation.

    I’ve lived under that kind of shadow as a man in NZ for many years and ultimately found it depressing and suffocating.
    I’m heartily glad to be away from it.

    Comment by Stephen — Fri 17th February 2006 @ 3:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar