Parents’ rights undermined
By Lavinia Ngatoko, Challenge Weekly, New Zealand
|
This
article was previously published in Challenge Weekly, Vol 63 Issue No 23. |
Opponents
of a bill aimed at protecting children against violence are warning that although
it stops short of outlawing smacking, the bill will still have severe
repercussions on parents’ rights to discipline their children.
Green MP,
Sue Bradford’s private members’ (Abolition of Force As a Justification for
Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, will repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act,
which allows the use of reasonable force to punish children. This section has
long been seen as a means for parents to defend themselves from charges of
physical abuse against their children. The Government has decided to
support the anti-smacking bill to select committee stage, which will allow the
issue to be debated, and for parents and members of the public to have their
say.
Ms
Bradford’s assurances that her bill will only remove the defence for parents to
use "reasonable force" to physically punish children, and would not
create a new offence, have done nothing to assuage the concerns of critics, who
believe it will only lead to more complications.
Maxim Institute managing director, Greg Fleming says the bill would unjustly change in law the very nature of the parent-child relationship by "undermining parental authority".
"Certainly
child abuse is always wrong - but it is already illegal. If juries are having
difficulty determining what is 'reasonable force', then we should consider
amending Section 59, but don't repeal it."
Mr
Fleming points out that Section 59 actually says nothing about smacking or
striking a child, but rather respects the rights of parents to impose their
will on their child.
ACT Justice
spokesman Stephen Franks says that – "Closer study suggests that Sue
Bradford’s incomprehension of the existing law might be a better explanation
than deception for her false claim that she would not necessarily criminalise
people who smacked children."
Although
United Future remains undecided on the bill, the party’s deputy leader and
family spokeswoman, Judy Turner, said she thought the bill was - "entirely
reasonable". She added that her problem was when it came to banning
smacking.
"Not
only do you criminalise the actions of ordinary, loving New Zealand parents,
but if we are going to define smacking as abuse, let's be consistent about it
and let Child, Youth and Family know they should get ready to investigate
possibly every family in the country," she adds.
Every
Child Counts, a coalition including Plunket, Barnardos, Save the Children,
Unicef NZ and AUT's Institute of Public Policy are supporting the bill. The
group has announced that the repeal of Section 59 would ensure consistent
messages about the unacceptability of violence against children and remove the
legal defence in situations of serious assaults against a child. "With
international research showing physical punishment increases the risks for
children and is not an effective way to discipline them, the case for repealing
Section 59 is very strong," says Every Child Counts spokesperson, Dr Emma
Davies.
"It
is time for New Zealand to acknowledge that children should have the same
protection as adults and pets. It's nonsense for the law to provide a
defence in situations of assault against children but not in situations of
assault against animals.
"Repealing
this outdated law will not criminalise parents but merely ensure clarity in
situations where charges are brought against parents who seriously assault a
child. We are not talking about a new criminal code that bans smacking or
criminalises parents. It is a simple move to ensure greater protection
for children when serious assault occurs," concludes Dr Davies.
A misguided crusade that will break
up families
By Lynette Burrows
How to control
Adults by means of 'children's rights'
By Lynette Burrows
The Folly of Sweden's State Controlled Families
Siv Westerberg's London lecture