Brian Edwards Media

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

Pic. Kenny Rodger, NZ Herald

Pic. Kenny Rodger, NZ Herald

Larry Baldock celebrates the victory of the pro-smacking lobby in the referendum.

While Bob McCoskrie spells it out:

Pic: Mark Mitchell

Pic: Mark Mitchell

 

“I’ve always thought it would be better to give parents certainty and just say use your hand, and then you know exactly what the force is. At the same time, I hear mums say they prefer the wooden spoon and sometimes that has the same effect as an open-hand smack. I do have a problem with belts… we should stay right clear of that level just to avoid any doubt.”  SST

41 Comments:

  1. I am extremely perplexed by this farce of a referendum – the question posed was totally ambiguous, I really doubt whether the majority of those people voting NO had any inkling of the wider ramifications of what undoubtedly will happen, as John Key has already intimated. As for Larry Baldock – he and his followers really are sick and as you wisely stated – a picture such as published in the N Z Herald paints a thousand words. I heard some of the comments on Radio N Z this morning uttered by his supporters at the celebratory ‘bash’ last evening. At the risk of sounding racist – some of these people to my mind are not above giving their kids a biff around the ears if I heard their accents correctly.
    I don’t wish to sound sanctimonious – I did paddle my children’s backsides occasionally when they were youngsters and wish to this day I hadn’t given into my frustrations and inabilities to discipline them in a more rational manner. This was during the 1970s when we had three children under 5 years when our third child was born. I also am a practising Christian, which is also giving me cause for anguish as the leading lights in this nonsense also profess to be Christians, albeit of the fundamental variety; spare the rod etc.
    All I can say is – ‘watch this space’!

  2. Jill, it is interesting you note you are a christian and you disagree with the fundamentalists who are leading the pro-smacking charge. Family First has a membership of one – Bob McCroskie. It doesn’t allow you to join up. It is a classic example of the sort of fake populist front “astro-turf” organisation that the American is so adept at creating. It hardly needs commenting that the hard christian right in New Zealand share much with the American counter-parts, including it seems not having got to the parts of the bible that have Jesus in them.

    One of the biggest failures fo leadership during the smacking debate was from the “mainstream” religions. I would have loved to have had heard the Anglican head of the CoE come out and challenge Bob McCroskie on how many members HE spoke for.

  3. I was very pleased with the result of the referendum. It signalled a return to common sense. But that wretched picture – two clenched fists and the “Whoo-hoo” – is just so, so wrong. It just undercuts the legitimacy of those wanting to revoke intrusive and poorly-drafted legislation. And it seems to signify: “Let’s oil-up the straps and soak the canes in brine, we’re back in business”. So undignified — and just stupidity, bordering on cretinous behaviour.
    The idiot should’ve conducted himself in a way that reflected the nature of his advocacy: Restraint and maturity.

  4. Its incredible that the media are reporting
    PM NZ John Key preference to instruct Police on New Zealand opinion.
    Golly .Jeepers I must be dumb, , I thought the Police had to follow the law as written.
    PM instructs Police.
    Shades of Helengrand.

  5. Good on ya Jill Brookes above:
    pull out the prejudice:
    of course you can tell the worth of a parent by his accent Jill

    “At the risk of sounding racist – some of these people to my mind are not above giving their kids a biff around the ears if I heard their accents correctly.”

    You tell us Jill, nearly 90 per cent of parents have to be racist, stupid and wrong

  6. Still baffles me. The BBC described properly the purpose of the Repeal:
    “The legal change was to stop people using “parental discipline” as a defence against assault charges but allowed police wide latitude to not prosecute cases seen as trivial.”
    That’s all the repeal ever was, and yet somehow it is shown to be something else. Peter and Common Sense. I challenge you to explain why you voted NO in relation to the purpose of the Repeal. I dare you!

  7. This cartoon says it all. http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/cartoons

  8. Well folks, Baldock and McCoskrie, that’s what you all voted for.

  9. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

    And a stick by any other name hurts just as bad.

    A wooden spoon is a stick. This is the 21st century. We should not be our hitting children with sticks!!!

  10. What strange times we live in. I wonder if they could add to the law so that its also ok to smack adults? I’d quite like to give Larry Baldock a smack with a wooden spoon next time I see him – what a waste of 9 million dollars! Where was the question: ‘Should a smack as part of BAD parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’

  11. I believe Journalism 101 is to always follow the money. It is a pity it took the Herald five years before they did just that.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592610&pnum=0

  12. “I hear mums say they prefer the wooden spoon and sometimes that has the same effect as an open-hand smack”

    Using any weapon on a child has the same effect as smacking. The purpose of a smack is to hurt the child so that they don’t do whatever they did that annoyed the parent ever again.

    Of course they will do it again. But then you get to hit them again so it’s worth it I suppose. If you’re a smacker that is.

  13. Oh. I shouldn’t read into a picture things that probably not there but is the chap behind and to the right of Baldock rubbing his hands in anticipation?

  14. Immac” re “I dare you!”
    Curious: are you an adult who’s regressed back to your childhood playground days? Or are you a child still to emerge into adolescence? Either way, a few sharp hits by a bamboo switch on to your legs, wouldn’t be amiss in some behavioural correction.

  15. Brian:

    As a professional media trainer, think it was any coincidence that Baldock and McCroskie managed to keep their more feral side on the downlow until it was all over?

    • As a professional media trainer, think it was any coincidence that Baldock and McCroskie managed to keep their more feral side on the downlow until it was all over?

      Not the advice we would give (Be straightforward, tell the truth, admit your mistakes) but you may well be right.

  16. Tom Semmens wrote:
    One of the biggest failures of leadership during the smacking debate was from the “mainstream” religions. I would have loved to have had heard the Anglican head of the CoE come out and challenge Bob McCroskie on how many members HE spoke for.

    I reply:
    I’d suggest the Anglican Communion (along with the Catholic Church) has a historical credibility deficit when it comes to pointing the finger at enablers and apologists for child abuse.

  17. Was it just me, but did anyone else involuntarily reach for their passport when they saw the result?

  18. Buy you a coffee at the departure gate, Gary!

  19. Gary: “Was it just me, but did anyone else involuntarily reach for their passport when they saw the result?” (Probably just you)

    And, pray, tell: exactly where would you and the other 11.5 % idiot savants, migrate to? North Korea, China, Russia etc? Where else, but in – ridiculous – NZ, does the State intrude, and say it’s unlawful to deal to a brat kid misbehaving in the supermarket aisle etc? Which can result in a criminal conviction with the attendant consequences for employment, overseas travel etc. You – along with the other airheads – need to take a Reality pill, and join the rest of us mortals on terra firma.

  20. Common Sense: I knew that you would either not reply or struggle around some form of semantics. I was interested in the loudest NO’s because it ws explained to me by some that they agreed with Repeal of S59 and thought was going well but voted No because they did not want to be criminals. I suspect that some voted No for disconnected reasons. And your reason? Of course you do not have to put your money where your mouth is.

    • Common Sense: I knew that you would either not reply or struggle around some form of semantics.

      Gentlemen, I think you should both stop this now and return to your usual civilised debate

  21. Baldock and co’s reaction, nay, demands after the referendum, that they be listened too, has been difficult enough to stomach; but nothing made me want to hurl more than the sound bite overheard on Friday night by one of the “Vote No” talking heads that went something along the lines of “finally parents can have their authority back”.

    Why do these Vote No campaigners always comeback to that old chestnut?

    All it does is confirm for those people who do abuse their children that what they do is no different, nor better or worse, than what Baldock and co are advocating as not just a parent’s right, but a parent’s duty.

    Insane.

    Yet when a child is abused, Baldock and co will be the first to say that it was because they were a “bad parent”, that advocating for spanking was only meant for good parents, not bad ones.

    Unfortunately too many shades of the other old redneck chestnut, “oh my best friend’s a Maaaaaaaari, but a good one, not like the rest of them”, for me to be comfortable with.

  22. Ianmac: I’m not one who’s known to equivocate. But what you lack in civility you more than make up with a goading asinine mentality — “I challenge you”, “I dare you!, “put your money where your mouth is”.
    Seriously, it’s not as if you need to possess an acuity of intellect to prompt my response: it’s the expansive void ‘upstairs’, which renders any exchange, redundant.

    • As a professional media trainer, think it was any coincidence that Baldock and McCroskie managed to keep their more feral side on the downlow until it was all over?

      Gentlemen, I think you should both stop this now and return to your usual civilised debate.

  23. BE@ August 24th, 2009 at 09:34:

    Sincerely sorry if I crossed a line there, but I have to wonder. Had a very interesting brunch on Sunday with friends who said their NO vote would have gone the other way if McCoskrie’s enthusiasm for belting children with kitchen implements had appeared in the SST a week earlier.

    It’s impossible to prove, of course, since we have a secret ballot in this country but I suspect a lot of people got hoodwinked by an (IMO) ambiguous and misleading question, and are not down with the more extreme agenda of Baldock and Co. (I think this is a good argument for repealing the Citizen Initiated Referenda Bill and requiring lobby groups to pay for their own meaningless and dishonest opinion polls, but that’s a whole other argument.)

    While I had my issues with Bradford’s original bill, it’s utter b.s. that her ‘secret agenda’ was to fill some gulag with ‘good parents’ as the neo-Herods of CYPFS rampaged unchecked through the country. You might disagree, but I’ve got to wonder why the media allowed Baldock, McCoskrie and Co. such a clear field to repeat flat out falsehoods basically unchallenged.

  24. Ooops… to wax pedantic on my bad self, I should have said the Citizen Initiated Referenda Act.

  25. Common Sense: “Where else, but in – ridiculous – NZ, does the State intrude, and say it’s unlawful to deal to a brat kid misbehaving in the supermarket aisle etc?”

    Deal to? Deal to? OMG it’s a child. Seriously what is wrong with this country. You don’t ‘deal to’ a child.

  26. The meme being spread by the libertarian Right that Family First and their supporters are freedom lovers and don’t want the all-powerful State intruding in their lives is farcical.

    These same people roll out the welcome mat for state intervention when it comes to prostitution, homosexual issues and the like. Which is why they must never get near the levers of power.

  27. So a guy punching the air in victory is an act of violence? Shows a ‘feral side’? Pathetic. If the same pic was of Sue Bradford after a similar landslide in HER favour, you’d take a different spin on it entirely.

    This whole ‘anti-smacking’ affair has thrown up gross over-reaction from both sides through its entirety, and will achieve nothing with regards the shameful child abuse in NZ.

  28. Ruth, “libertarians of the right”? To paraphrase Pauline Hansen, please explain?

  29. Actually the mainstream churches were on the “Yes” side.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10590197

  30. T: You don’t ‘deal to’ a child.

    Without sounding clever: “Deal to” means the punishment is Instant. Some sharp words
    followed by pain. Maybe a few tears, even. A summary dispensing of discipline, resolving
    the problem then and there — in the supermarket aisle.

    “Deal with” means procrastination and procedure — going home, sitting child on the couch, rummaging through a plethora of good-parenting books, selecting required book, flipping through the pages to find the chapter of “Misbehaving in Public” and then narrating the chapter, out loud, whilst I sit beside my child, with arm draped around him/her.

    • T: You don’t ‘deal to’ a child.

      T and Common Sense: I’ve approved your latest comments, but will continue to do so only if the personal insults stop.

  31. Yeah why bother educating yourself or taking any time to calm down and think about your actions when you can just smack them over the head.

    Why bother to actually think when you can just lash out like the lazy parent that you are.

    • Yeah why bother educating yourself or taking any time to calm down and think about your actions when you can just smack them over the head.

      T and Common Sense: I’ve approved your latest comments, but will continue to do so only if the personal insults stop.

  32. Russell, I know you are aware that Libertarianism holds dear the non-aggression principle.

    If the role of government is truly to protect its citizens from the initiation of force, then Libertarians should recognize that a parent initiating physical force against their child is no less an initiation of force then if a another person initiated force against the child.

    Hence my saying Peter Cresswell et al are Libertarian Right – or Uncle Sam’s Republican Club.

  33. Ruth, quick note, I’m not avoiding your post; I’ve just got in from a 9 hour round trip drive. I’m going to have my dinner now and will respond in due course, (or maybe after the second course) :)

  34. Brian – so I don’t drag this Libertarianz arguement out on your site – which I like incidentally. I’ve taken this back over to http://www.pc.blogspot.com.
    Thanks.

  35. Whats wrong with all you short sighted narrow minded lot.

    The result of the referendum has almost nothing to do with smacking.

    Its all about the ‘Nanny State’ thinking that society can be fixed by laws. Keep in mind that the previous Govt was about to bring in new rules about light bulbs and shower heads – things that affect you AT HOME. We all know that the anti- smacking law will have no effect on serious child abuse – just like we all know that the current proposed dropping of the drink level for driving will have no effect on the seriously bad drink drivers – they already reoffend so why anyone thinks lowering the alcohol level will make any difference to this lot is beyond me.

    Now if the Bradford law had said something like ‘using an instrument’ then everyone would be happy – but no they went too far with social engineering and intrussion into the living room and THAT PISSES PEOPLE OFF.

  36. “Its all about the ‘Nanny State’ thinking that society can be fixed by laws.”

    We’ll just quietly repeal those laws prohibiting murder, rape and theft then shall we Barry?