Comments on: A Poster Boy for the Pro-Smacking Lobby

By: Frauen Erotik

Frauen Erotik — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:11:56 +0000

hh.. amazing.

By: Deborah

Deborah — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:55:49 +0000

The Sunday show was an appalling portrayal of the case and was essentially manufacturing consent for the ongoing maltreatment of children.

Changing attitudes about the physical punishment is a key aspect of reducing all forms of child maltreatment. Sadly, the Sunday doco made it seem acceptable for children to be subjected to “angry Dad mode” and “what ever it takes” to get them to listen.

The show demonstrated the need for all interested and supportive citizens to help us counter the deliberately misleading messages coming from opponents of the law.

By: BE

BE — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:38:10 +0000

Thanks for referring to the..”erroneously called ‘anti smacking’ law…” Maybe one day it will sink in..

Yes, there is no reference in the act at all to ‘smacking’. It simply removes the ‘reasonable force’ defence and gives the police a discretion as to whether or not to prosecute in trivial cases.

By: ROL

ROL — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:46:42 +0000

Thanks for referring to the..”erroneously called ‘anti smacking’ law…” Maybe one day it will sink in..

I’m tempted to use the words ‘anti-slapping’ but it’s probably better to correct gullible people who still use the expression, ‘anti-smacking’ by reffring to it as ‘section 59 of the crimes act’ because it is about crime after all.

However I think it’s valid to refer to opponents of the bill as the ‘pro-slapping’ lobby.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:39:08 +0000

That was my original point, jonno. Given the supposedly widespread opposition to the ‘anti-amacking’ legislation, a ‘not guilty’ verdict might have been expected. Clearly this jury was in no doubt on the evidence that he was guilty as charged and, if they did have reservations about the law, set those reservations aside.

By: BE

BE — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:34:12 +0000

The “it can’t have been a punch if it didn’t leave bruises” argument is dreadful on at least two levels:

Right on, Russell

By: Top Bloke

Top Bloke — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:08:26 +0000

I didn’t necessarily think that the jury would have been opposed to the bill, more that in an effort not to appear as such they swung the other way

By: Russell Brown

Russell Brown — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:32:25 +0000

The “it can’t have been a punch if it didn’t leave bruises” argument is dreadful on at least two levels:

1. The guy was allowed to go home with his kids after he’d calmed down. “Severe bruising” could hardly have manifested in that time. AFAIK, there was no subsequent medical examination of the four year-old boy who was hit. So it’s irrelevant.

2. It’s offensive to suppose that it’s okay for parents to hit children in the head so long as they don’t leave bruises.

By: jonno

jonno — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:10:36 +0000

But I’m inclined to think that opposition to what has been erroneously called ‘the anti-smacking law’ was more likely to have produced a not-guilty verdict.

But wasn’t he guilty?

By: BE

BE — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:31:15 +0000

I agree that no one can be absolutely sure what happened. But I’m inclined to think that opposition to what has been erroneously called ‘the anti-smacking law’ was more likely to have produced a not-guilty verdict.