NZ parents retain right to smack children?
No Smack | 02.05.2007 12:02 | Education | Health | Social Struggles | World
It is not a matter of marching, decent, good parents into court. It's a matter of leading by example. Violence does not win and smacking children is the root cause of domestice violence.
Spare the Rod
Domestic Violence Kills
Parents in New Zealand will retain the right to discipline their children with a smack after political leaders reached a compromise in a debate that has divided the country.
Supporters of what has become known as the anti-smacking bill, including Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, say New Zealand needs to take some responsibility for its appalling record of violence towards children.
Miss Clark says police discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable parental discipline and what is assault was always implicit in the bill.
It has now been spelt out explicitly under the amendment.
"There has been no desire at all to see decent, good parents marched into court for something that is inconsequential," Ms Clark said.
===============================
Dear Ms Clark,
It is not a matter of marching, decent, good parents into court. It's a matter of leading by example. Violence does not win and smacking children is the root cause of domestice violence.
There are no laws that allow people to smack anyone else. Why children? If parents learn better parenting skills then they would never use smacking to teach their children a lesson.
Let me prove it to you....
Spare the Rod?
We all know the phrase from the Bible that says spare the rod and spoil the child. Does this mean hitting them? Is there another meaning that is possible here? An advisor of mine whilst I was Children’s Commissioner in Tasmania, who was preparing for church ministry, said that her interpretation of the Bible allows us to consider these statements from a non violent perspective. She said that the rod in the Bible referred to the shepherd’s rod. This shepherd’s rod had a crook in it which was used to hook onto the sheep to prevent them from straying, to contain them. I then realized for myself, that the rod was not the staff that the shepherd also had, that I believe was used to beat off wolves and other predators. My own reflections also lead me to this conclusion, as my favourite Psalm, Psalm 23 states that the Lord is my shepherd and that His rod and staff will always guide me and be my comfort.
The rod is to steer me to paths of righteousness with the rod to protect me from harm. Neither of these were there to harm me, and this concept of a benign and loving God, who like a good shepherd was devoted and faithful in looking after his flock is commonplace in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully offer you this alternative way of viewing some Biblical statements as matters for your consideration, to show how it is possible to parent without any violence, but with guidance, care and love.
Patmalar Ambikapathy
=====================
Preventing Violence - Preventing Crime - Preventing A Prison Experience - Preventing Youth Suicide [updated 20 May 2006]
4 February 2006
Lack of social skills in my family brought on smacking and violence as a means to solve problems. When I learned how wrong this was it saddened me to learn that my own parents lacked the social skills needed to use dialogue for solving problems and taught me how to use violence.
Classically conditioned that violence wins. Bad lesson.
When parents have a child that is not the time to tell them there are better ways to bring up their children rather than belittling them, putting them down, or belting them into submission. You see this often at the market place. Even when I see it in the street parents by that stage cannot be told easily and there are reasons for it. They inherently know better? Once a parent has had a child they simply cannot be told how to raise their child based on their own past family experience, they think they have all that experience when it was passed down from the family 'they trusted the most' which is the one that raised them.
Then when the marriage breaks down usually because of the high value and principal of 'something' like 'raising children', or 'financial difficulty', or even a number of crisis all together, then taking into account both parents were raised by 'separate families' and could vary in alternative ideas and ideals. Then if a 'personality clash' occurs between them, they have to seek the real answers and when they find out that simple skills could have been learned earlier, either before or after the 'problem' they're usually shocked at the loss.
Also learning that their parents may have lacked those skills to pass on! Being locked out of skills can lead people into not taking full responsibility for their actions, crime, problem or learning curve. They could end up in jail!
Parents and governments must take some responsibility.
In my case the skills most needed were, self-worth, conflict resolution, violence doesn't win, better communication, and compromise.
Take the case of the thief who stole short change and killed his victim. If the offender in this case knew how much his victim was worth then he would have valued his victim - at least with as much worth and more than the twenty or so dollars stolen - that he was subsequently killed for. So it's not just responsibility that offender's need they also need worth and they don't get that from the prison system or being put down as a child.
In communication children and parents would have learned to only use constructive feedback or pay compliments when addressing someone but no put downs and the reasons for it ensures more friends even when one makes a remark about someone just because they were bored and thinking it was a funny thing to do at the time, for no decent reason of course, but because of that bad remark 'jokingly' has now lost a friend. To learn how much one is worth therefore is an important lesson (social skill). Self worth, self esteem, self-expression, public speaking etc. Hard to come by in a family where parents lack social skills or in a prison.
And do I trust myself! I never asked myself that question until after the offending violence and in prison for seven years! I suffered from hives and could not concentrate as a child as much as other children could and because of the violence in the home as well as a drunkard stepfather I was always looking for someone to trust but not myself. You can therefore see how this can prevent one's insight into one's responsibility or offending behaviour that can lead to prison. You may have heard of the hole? In short it's not good to fall into holes because it's cold, wet, and uncomfortable. You need to step around the hole and to do that you need to take responsibility for falling into holes.
Potential victims do this as well....Sometimes, setting themselves up for a fall because they too don't know how to take responsibility for looking after themselves. Just like the offenders don't.
I could not compromise when the value and principal 'seemed too high'. No skills e.g. compromise, win-win, win-lose, lose-lose. I could have learned that when I was eight years of age, as well as the above stated social skills. Lose the battle and win the war! But I never once asked myself did I trust myself, not to get into trouble, because I was an at risk child who was always trying to find someone to trust in my immature family who lacked social skills. In a crisis situation when the value and principal are high and one's emotional level is high because of it, then one's thinking level is usually low. In that type of crisis with little social skills, a person who has been classically condition to use violence as a means to solve a problem can reach for it in order to solve the problem they don't want. But without that lesson one would not reach for violence as a means, so easily.
1) Not every parent has the social skills to pass on. In fact up to at least three generations of parents in Australia today taking into account indigenous Australians.
2) If parents don't have social skills and can't be sold on better ways to raise children until after they've had children then they have to get those skills before they do have children.
If parents have not got them they cannot pass those skills on leaving the child or children more vulnerable and the community more at risk. Where do you get social skills if you cannot get them at home? They have to get them from school there is no alternative. Social skills and academic skills balanced into the curricula. Then all children can get social skills equally even if their parents don't have them to pass on.
3) That's is why up to 5% of people go to jail or hospital or the morgue - expensive results because of the push to produce tax-payers, academics, who may even leave university before they have attained good communication and conflict resolution skills.
Especially for those who do not get further education like me leaving school at age 15.
4) This cure is for the potential victims as well you know, not just for the offenders. How not to become a potential victim is written in the social skills curriculum under a few sections like for instance; Provocation, leaving one self-vulnerable, etc.
The most serious crimes also occur because the victim lacked social skills.
5) Youth Suicide - [updated 20 May 2006]
Lack of worth and knowledge can lead to youth suicide where as many as 300 people a year die in Australia of suicide then lessons have surely not been learnt!
Therefore the above argument raised about raising children better and making sure that all parents have better social skills to pass on to their children will prevent more victims. This is necessary for their survival. It will also prevent people going to jail. The money spent on police, prisons, hospitals, injury, or even death is returned to the community for better education instead of being constantly drained into a dead end.
Who wants to become a victim unnecessarily? Who wants to lose a child unnecessarily? Who wants to live a short life unnecessarily? Who wants to go to jail? If victims use things like 'shifting gears' conflict resolution in a crisis there will be no doubt, less victims. If they have those conflict resolution skills that is?
This will save lots the money spent on prisons and the victim industry. Funding returned to the community and the social skills industry and reduces the inflation of building new prisons etc because those five per cent will make it. This will prevent crime and is a cure for domestic violence for the whole community to absorb.
A lot of people spend time on post release and that is necessary but I spent my time on crime prevention because then post release is not so necessary nor are prisons.
*THE PUNISHMENT IS THE CRIME*
*FOR A WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE*
WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?
a) DALI LAMA: "LOVE, PEACE AND KINDNESS YOU CAN'T BREAK IT."
b) FREDERICK NIETZSCHE: "LOVE YOUR ENEMY."
THERE IS ALSO FORGIVENESS BUT YOU DON'T GET THE COMPLETE PROTECTION UNLESS YOU ACCEPT BOTH OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS.
AND FOR THAT YOU MUST COME TO TERMS WITH
c) FORGIVENESS.
Thank you for your time.
Related:
ACTION: 17th Silent Annual Domestic Violence Memorial March
http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=56519
END PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN
http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/
Domestic violence, someone to blame? But it has little to do with racism except to say that Aboriginals are picked on by the ABC and others and because they're black and tend to fight back. But not correct to define the problem as "Aboriginal" and that "Aboriginal Leaders" should do more but the community should do more to get the authorites to start leading by example and more to do with society as a whole.
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/57780
Supporters of what has become known as the anti-smacking bill, including Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, say New Zealand needs to take some responsibility for its appalling record of violence towards children.
Miss Clark says police discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable parental discipline and what is assault was always implicit in the bill.
It has now been spelt out explicitly under the amendment.
"There has been no desire at all to see decent, good parents marched into court for something that is inconsequential," Ms Clark said.
===============================
Dear Ms Clark,
It is not a matter of marching, decent, good parents into court. It's a matter of leading by example. Violence does not win and smacking children is the root cause of domestice violence.
There are no laws that allow people to smack anyone else. Why children? If parents learn better parenting skills then they would never use smacking to teach their children a lesson.
Let me prove it to you....
Spare the Rod?
We all know the phrase from the Bible that says spare the rod and spoil the child. Does this mean hitting them? Is there another meaning that is possible here? An advisor of mine whilst I was Children’s Commissioner in Tasmania, who was preparing for church ministry, said that her interpretation of the Bible allows us to consider these statements from a non violent perspective. She said that the rod in the Bible referred to the shepherd’s rod. This shepherd’s rod had a crook in it which was used to hook onto the sheep to prevent them from straying, to contain them. I then realized for myself, that the rod was not the staff that the shepherd also had, that I believe was used to beat off wolves and other predators. My own reflections also lead me to this conclusion, as my favourite Psalm, Psalm 23 states that the Lord is my shepherd and that His rod and staff will always guide me and be my comfort.
The rod is to steer me to paths of righteousness with the rod to protect me from harm. Neither of these were there to harm me, and this concept of a benign and loving God, who like a good shepherd was devoted and faithful in looking after his flock is commonplace in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully offer you this alternative way of viewing some Biblical statements as matters for your consideration, to show how it is possible to parent without any violence, but with guidance, care and love.
Patmalar Ambikapathy
=====================
Preventing Violence - Preventing Crime - Preventing A Prison Experience - Preventing Youth Suicide [updated 20 May 2006]
4 February 2006
Lack of social skills in my family brought on smacking and violence as a means to solve problems. When I learned how wrong this was it saddened me to learn that my own parents lacked the social skills needed to use dialogue for solving problems and taught me how to use violence.
Classically conditioned that violence wins. Bad lesson.
When parents have a child that is not the time to tell them there are better ways to bring up their children rather than belittling them, putting them down, or belting them into submission. You see this often at the market place. Even when I see it in the street parents by that stage cannot be told easily and there are reasons for it. They inherently know better? Once a parent has had a child they simply cannot be told how to raise their child based on their own past family experience, they think they have all that experience when it was passed down from the family 'they trusted the most' which is the one that raised them.
Then when the marriage breaks down usually because of the high value and principal of 'something' like 'raising children', or 'financial difficulty', or even a number of crisis all together, then taking into account both parents were raised by 'separate families' and could vary in alternative ideas and ideals. Then if a 'personality clash' occurs between them, they have to seek the real answers and when they find out that simple skills could have been learned earlier, either before or after the 'problem' they're usually shocked at the loss.
Also learning that their parents may have lacked those skills to pass on! Being locked out of skills can lead people into not taking full responsibility for their actions, crime, problem or learning curve. They could end up in jail!
Parents and governments must take some responsibility.
In my case the skills most needed were, self-worth, conflict resolution, violence doesn't win, better communication, and compromise.
Take the case of the thief who stole short change and killed his victim. If the offender in this case knew how much his victim was worth then he would have valued his victim - at least with as much worth and more than the twenty or so dollars stolen - that he was subsequently killed for. So it's not just responsibility that offender's need they also need worth and they don't get that from the prison system or being put down as a child.
In communication children and parents would have learned to only use constructive feedback or pay compliments when addressing someone but no put downs and the reasons for it ensures more friends even when one makes a remark about someone just because they were bored and thinking it was a funny thing to do at the time, for no decent reason of course, but because of that bad remark 'jokingly' has now lost a friend. To learn how much one is worth therefore is an important lesson (social skill). Self worth, self esteem, self-expression, public speaking etc. Hard to come by in a family where parents lack social skills or in a prison.
And do I trust myself! I never asked myself that question until after the offending violence and in prison for seven years! I suffered from hives and could not concentrate as a child as much as other children could and because of the violence in the home as well as a drunkard stepfather I was always looking for someone to trust but not myself. You can therefore see how this can prevent one's insight into one's responsibility or offending behaviour that can lead to prison. You may have heard of the hole? In short it's not good to fall into holes because it's cold, wet, and uncomfortable. You need to step around the hole and to do that you need to take responsibility for falling into holes.
Potential victims do this as well....Sometimes, setting themselves up for a fall because they too don't know how to take responsibility for looking after themselves. Just like the offenders don't.
I could not compromise when the value and principal 'seemed too high'. No skills e.g. compromise, win-win, win-lose, lose-lose. I could have learned that when I was eight years of age, as well as the above stated social skills. Lose the battle and win the war! But I never once asked myself did I trust myself, not to get into trouble, because I was an at risk child who was always trying to find someone to trust in my immature family who lacked social skills. In a crisis situation when the value and principal are high and one's emotional level is high because of it, then one's thinking level is usually low. In that type of crisis with little social skills, a person who has been classically condition to use violence as a means to solve a problem can reach for it in order to solve the problem they don't want. But without that lesson one would not reach for violence as a means, so easily.
1) Not every parent has the social skills to pass on. In fact up to at least three generations of parents in Australia today taking into account indigenous Australians.
2) If parents don't have social skills and can't be sold on better ways to raise children until after they've had children then they have to get those skills before they do have children.
If parents have not got them they cannot pass those skills on leaving the child or children more vulnerable and the community more at risk. Where do you get social skills if you cannot get them at home? They have to get them from school there is no alternative. Social skills and academic skills balanced into the curricula. Then all children can get social skills equally even if their parents don't have them to pass on.
3) That's is why up to 5% of people go to jail or hospital or the morgue - expensive results because of the push to produce tax-payers, academics, who may even leave university before they have attained good communication and conflict resolution skills.
Especially for those who do not get further education like me leaving school at age 15.
4) This cure is for the potential victims as well you know, not just for the offenders. How not to become a potential victim is written in the social skills curriculum under a few sections like for instance; Provocation, leaving one self-vulnerable, etc.
The most serious crimes also occur because the victim lacked social skills.
5) Youth Suicide - [updated 20 May 2006]
Lack of worth and knowledge can lead to youth suicide where as many as 300 people a year die in Australia of suicide then lessons have surely not been learnt!
Therefore the above argument raised about raising children better and making sure that all parents have better social skills to pass on to their children will prevent more victims. This is necessary for their survival. It will also prevent people going to jail. The money spent on police, prisons, hospitals, injury, or even death is returned to the community for better education instead of being constantly drained into a dead end.
Who wants to become a victim unnecessarily? Who wants to lose a child unnecessarily? Who wants to live a short life unnecessarily? Who wants to go to jail? If victims use things like 'shifting gears' conflict resolution in a crisis there will be no doubt, less victims. If they have those conflict resolution skills that is?
This will save lots the money spent on prisons and the victim industry. Funding returned to the community and the social skills industry and reduces the inflation of building new prisons etc because those five per cent will make it. This will prevent crime and is a cure for domestic violence for the whole community to absorb.
A lot of people spend time on post release and that is necessary but I spent my time on crime prevention because then post release is not so necessary nor are prisons.
*THE PUNISHMENT IS THE CRIME*
*FOR A WORLD WITHOUT VIOLENCE*
WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?
a) DALI LAMA: "LOVE, PEACE AND KINDNESS YOU CAN'T BREAK IT."
b) FREDERICK NIETZSCHE: "LOVE YOUR ENEMY."
THERE IS ALSO FORGIVENESS BUT YOU DON'T GET THE COMPLETE PROTECTION UNLESS YOU ACCEPT BOTH OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS.
AND FOR THAT YOU MUST COME TO TERMS WITH
c) FORGIVENESS.
Thank you for your time.
Related:
ACTION: 17th Silent Annual Domestic Violence Memorial March
http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=56519 END PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN
http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/ Domestic violence, someone to blame? But it has little to do with racism except to say that Aboriginals are picked on by the ABC and others and because they're black and tend to fight back. But not correct to define the problem as "Aboriginal" and that "Aboriginal Leaders" should do more but the community should do more to get the authorites to start leading by example and more to do with society as a whole.
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/57780
No Smack
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Baby shaking sentence 'too lenient'
02.05.2007 12:47
Tomas Klamo, 23, was found guilty last month of manslaughter after his son, Isiah, died from bleeding on the brain in July 2005.
Today, the man of Melton in the city's west was sentenced in the Victorian Supreme Court to five years' jail, with a two-year non-parole period.
Australian Childhood Foundation spokesman Dr Joe Tucci says the sentence sends a message that violence towards children should be tolerated.
"It's out of step with community expectation," he said.
"I think the community wants crimes against children of this degree treated much more seriously than a two-year minimum sentence reflects."
Parrot Press
Australia: Canberra funds $2.5m anti-smacking campaign
02.05.2007 13:16
A $2.5 million tax-payer funded campaign will warn parents not to smack their children.
The guidelines will be released by a child welfare agency supported by the federal government and will be available in 16 languages.
The Australian Childhood Foundation's website advises parents that smacking children teaches them that violence is acceptable later in life.
The website says: "Physical punishment causes pain to stop the behaviour. For example hitting a child with a hand or object," News Limited reports.
It says physical punishment can have an adverse impact on children's emotional development and "teaches children that violence can be an acceptable way to solve problems".
"Physical punishment can undermine a child's sense of love and security," the guidelines say.
"They can often become anxious, fearful or rebellious."
Chief Executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation Dr Joe Tucci said parents should not have to hurt children to teach them a lesson.
"We need to think about whether this is the sort of tool we want to continue to use - just because their parents used it, does that mean we have to? I think the answer is no."
Associate Professor Margaret Sims from Edith Cowan University said the guidelines were a starting point for parents who needed to be re-educated about how to discipline their children.
ustralia: QLD: Beattie dismisses calls for smacking ban
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he has smacked all three of his children and he does not support a push for law changes in the area.
The criminal code currently contains a 'domestic discipline' defence for a parent using physical force.
But Labor MP Dean Wells says it should be removed because it is protecting parents who go too far.
He will make his case at a public forum on children's rights at Parliament House today.
Mr Beattie says he has spoken with Mr Wells about the issue but he disagrees.
"I think that any parent has the right in my view, within reason, provided there's no permanent damage or injury, to smack their child," he said.
"And if anyone wants to plead guilty, I do, I did.
"I respect Dean's view, I don't agree with him."
Parrot Press
Child abuse 'a huge problem for Australia'
02.05.2007 13:29
The figures from the Institute of Health and Welfare show there were 55,000 substantiated cases of abuse in 2005-2006 - a rise of 10,000 on the previous year.
There has also been a 40 per cent increase in the past five years in the number of children removed from their family home by authorities.
Dr Sue Packer has been working as a community paediatrician in the ACT since 1990 and says almost all the parents she meets want to do a good job.
But she says the new statistics are a concern.
"I think it's really enforcing for me that child abuse is a huge problem for Australia, it's something that I'm myopic about because of my work but it really is out there and it really is a problem," she said.
Smacking ban too extreme, Family Association says
The Australian Family Association says a ban on smacking children is going too far.
The Australian Childhood Foundation says it would like physical punishment against children to be banned.
But Australian Family Association spokesman Damien Tudehope says the current laws are adequate.
"We have some concerns about introducing laws which have the potential of turning parents into criminals," he said.
"Certainly we don't advocate any circumstances where it's appropriate to leave permanent marks on children and to use discipline in a way where it becomes an assault on children.
"But to introduce laws which mean the Government has a role to play in deciding who and who isn't a good parent, we think that's going too far."
The Australian Childhood Foundation has released the findings of a national survey of 720 adults.
It has revealed 45 per cent of those surveyed believe it is okay to leave a mark on a child from physical punishment.
It also shows 10 per cent of respondents believe it is okay to use canes, sticks and belts to punish children.
The foundation's chief executive, Joe Tucci, says while there has been a decline in support for physical punishment, there is obviously still a large section of the community using it.
"I'd like to see Australia move towards banning the use of physical punishment against children," he said.
"That would put us in step with 15 other countries around the world and with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Parrot Press
Other root causes of domestic violence
02.05.2007 14:24
The contradiction in terms my learned friends is the example set by the government and the citizens not by learners raising children with no skills.
If smacking were banned then parents would have to learn how to raise children without smacking or losing it whilst trying to raise children.
If children had those skills they could pass them onto their children. Because allot of their parents missed out and so did they.
Didn't you read any of the examples posted?
Just being a red neck goodie two shoes is just an emotive response to a child killing, but a much better response would be to learn the lessons of the past and change the program.
If governments ignore that then they are responsible as well and so are people like you and me for not insisting that smacking children is a bad lesson that shouldn't be taught and should be banned.
Who else are you alowed to smack? Your pets?
That lesson sent that man to prison and killed a child, how much did that cost the community? The child was priceless and the prison cost over 60,000 dollars a year. Not to mention building more prisons.
We haven't gone into the hospital, courts, coroners, family courts, or police bills yet or the subsequent domestic violence out in the wider community, say between parents themselves, bullying at school, youth suicide, excess drug taking etc.
Prevention is better than cure. There are pragmatic answers after all, so why aren't the government listening completely?
The fact is violence is also perpetrated by the authorities, police, and prison guards and the armed forces.
Tens of thousands remember Anzac murderers and tens of millions stayed home.
Teaching kids that Anzacs are brave and not biscuits, or that diggers are brave and not either digging holes to bury their dead or dieing, is a another lethal meme that encourages domestic violence in the community.
And that's probably why governments won't ban smacking because they want children to grow up with a bad attitude? So that they can get into trouble. Then they can political grandstand on law and order for political points using these learners as fodder for the victim industry or to be enlisted in the armed forces more easily.
Policeman, Prison Guards, and Military Personnel who end up killing themselves or others.
Think about Iraq for instance 655,000 dead!
Well what about it bah bah bah, are you a sheepy?
Tony
Aust: Mental health problems on the rise among youth: academic
03.05.2007 00:07
Professor Graham Martin from the University of Queensland outlined the research at the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' annual conference on the Gold Coast.
He says 300 Australians under 25 committed suicide last year.
Professor Martin says the suicide toll has dropped by about 40 per cent in the past decade, but other issues, such as self harm, are emerging.
"Our best understanding is that perhaps five or 6 per cent of young people in schools may be doing this and it appears that they may be doing it to somehow cope with internal issues, such as issues of upset or stress or pain," he said.
Professor Martin says 15 per cent of Australians have had a major depressive episode by their 18th birthday, but the cadet project, like the MindMatters program in high schools, can develop resilience.
[So can better social skills, which matter more because they're general and not specific. In otherworlds why break it down?]
Martin: "If we have the right kinds of programs at the right times, say at year eight, we can actually develop optimism and connectives to the school and a number of other protective factors which in fact reduce the likelihood of depression occurring," he said.
Sure Social Skills, in self-awareness, communication, conflict resolution, self worth and self esteem, and public speaking.....In general Life Skills that are just as important as academic skills. It should start when you're a baby.
Remember teachers aught not complain about the additional workload because the money saved from the victim industry, police, prisons, courts, hospitals, etc is put back into employing more teachers to teach the said skills.
What is wrong with kids having one hour of communication? One hour of conflict resolution? One hour of self-awareness? One hour of other skills necessary for their own survival? Alternatively or once a week? Then when they have kids they can teach them!
That will keep 5 percent of them out of prison the hospital and the morgue.
Parrot Press
Re: NZ parents retain right to smack?
03.05.2007 02:20
A/ its ok to hit children and
B/ the decision about how hard is up to those experts in dispensing violence - the police.
Twin arseholes National and Labour are happily patting themselves on the back and we're no closer to enlightened civilization.
Sue Bradford should not have backed down.
Don Franks