Comments on: New Zealanders petition for the right to hit their children http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:05:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Lyn http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-5 Lyn Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:00:53 +0000 http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-5 I love this post - it's such a lucid comment on the issue. I think it's interesting that some people are so outraged by the idea that what happens behind closed doors in the privacy of the "family" might be subject to intervention from the outside - in the form of " the law" or interpellation by the police. This used to apply to women also - it used to be legal for husbands to rape and beat their wives. And legislative changes that make this fully unacceptable, and changes to the power that police have to enforce prosecution have been extremely important to changing the way that people view these kinds of activities. It's only one step - people outside of violent relationships still won't intervene and those within may not ask for help, but as a society we're clear about what's right. And I don't see people attempting to make violence of women within the family legal again. Granted, women within marriage are now regarded as autonomous adults in a way that children simply can't be either philosophically or legally, but the idea that physical violence is an unacceptable mode of interaction between people who are intimate is something that seems intuitive - as Rowan says, "how is this view not mainstream?" Perniciously I think it actually is - but we're being held to account over the anti-smacking bill by a few people who have a really knee-jerk reaction to the intervention into their "privacy" that I mentioned at the start of this comment, and for reasons that are probably to do with their own political and personal positionality. I have to assume that Rowan is such a lucid commentator on this particular legislative change because he has no kids and is thus not directly affected by it except as a member of the society to which it applies. Which is interesting. I'm not letting that change the fact that I agree with him 110 though. I love this post - it’s such a lucid comment on the issue. I think it’s interesting that some people are so outraged by the idea that what happens behind closed doors in the privacy of the “family” might be subject to intervention from the outside - in the form of ” the law” or interpellation by the police. This used to apply to women also - it used to be legal for husbands to rape and beat their wives. And legislative changes that make this fully unacceptable, and changes to the power that police have to enforce prosecution have been extremely important to changing the way that people view these kinds of activities. It’s only one step - people outside of violent relationships still won’t intervene and those within may not ask for help, but as a society we’re clear about what’s right. And I don’t see people attempting to make violence of women within the family legal again. Granted, women within marriage are now regarded as autonomous adults in a way that children simply can’t be either philosophically or legally, but the idea that physical violence is an unacceptable mode of interaction between people who are intimate is something that seems intuitive - as Rowan says, “how is this view not mainstream?” Perniciously I think it actually is - but we’re being held to account over the anti-smacking bill by a few people who have a really knee-jerk reaction to the intervention into their “privacy” that I mentioned at the start of this comment, and for reasons that are probably to do with their own political and personal positionality. I have to assume that Rowan is such a lucid commentator on this particular legislative change because he has no kids and is thus not directly affected by it except as a member of the society to which it applies. Which is interesting. I’m not letting that change the fact that I agree with him 110 though.

]]> By: Rowan http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-4 Rowan Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:01:50 +0000 http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-4 Hi, I can't find the example you mention, could you be more specific? As I understand it there is no new law being drafted, they are repealing a section of the law because it had let serious offenders off the hook. The <a href="http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/section59/" rel="nofollow">Green party post their policy here.</a> Hi, I can’t find the example you mention, could you be more specific?

As I understand it there is no new law being drafted, they are repealing a section of the law because it had let serious offenders off the hook.

The Green party post their policy here.

]]> By: Andy http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-3 Andy Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:59 +0000 http://rowanwernham.com/blog/2008/02/28/new-zealanders-petition-for-the-right-to-hit-their-children/#comment-3 You said... "The bill is not about smacking. It is about belting and beating." So why was the bill referred to as the "Anti-Smacking Bill" on the Green's website? Read the law - it outlaws smacking in any degree. You said… “The bill is not about smacking. It is about belting and beating.”

So why was the bill referred to as the “Anti-Smacking Bill” on the Green’s website? Read the law - it outlaws smacking in any degree.

]]>