Section 59 Amendment -- ANTI SMACKING BILL ?

Alright, in New Zealand, there is a lot of debate over the alleged "anti-smacking" debate. I just though I would try to put some thoughts out there:

As it stands, section 59 currently says:

(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.

Now, as everyone knows, that means you can beat your kids as long as it is thought of as "reasonable" and that is down to the courts to decide currently what is reasonable.

In 2005, Sue Bradford offered the following amendment to section 59:

Abolishing section 59

this in essence meant take it away. (DUH!)

now this is where it gets interesting. People of course were outraged, and as can be seen, there is currently a huge debate about the so called anti-smacking bill. Like Nick said, "I should be allowed to smack my kids if I want to." While not fully accurate, actually not even close to accurate, his statement does have its point... is big brother meddling?

Well, there have also been rumours abound that the repealing of section 59 is not actually what is happening. What they are saying now is that section 59 is getting AMENDED instead of being repealed. This means that maybe we are allowed to smack our kids after all?

Well, currently, on the NZ parliment page, I was only able to find this link (which if you look at the date was current as of 28th of March 2007) :
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm

in it, it states that Sue Bradford is indeed still trying to repeal section 59, and not amend it:
Purpose: The purpose of this act is to amend the principal Act [Section 59] to abolish the use of reasonable force
Clause 4: Section 59 of the Principal Act [Section 59] is repealed

however, it is also my understanding that this is not the most up to date version of the bill. I have also seen numerous references to what is currently being discussed in parliment. And that is and actual amendment of the bill from what it is now ( i.e. allowed to use reasonable force) to:

Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

59 Parental control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of;

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

Now if anyone can confirm that that is indeed what is being debated in front of parliment (with preferably a link from the parliment website like i provided earlier --> Glenn, Sam?) then that would be fantastic, just to be 100% sure. But I will continue this discussion under the premise that the above amendment is correct. (which would also mean that I was wrong earlier Sam, I can admit that)

Now no logical person can really say that the amendment is incorrect. The amendment is in fact not an anti-smacking bill at all. It does not prohibit parents from smacking their kids. It does however prevent them from smacking them as a form of punishment (Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.), but allows them to smack them as a form of prevention if I am to read it correctly. Now that is a pretty damn fine line. At this point, I must criticize the mass media about misrepresenting the bill (let me reinforce that I am making this argument under the premise that the above amendment is correct) as a 100% anti smacking bill, which it does not seem to be. However, how come Labour are not coming out to defend it en masse either? if they were, we surely would have heard something about it (arguments that say "they are, but no one is listening" simply cant be true, and if it is, it means that Labour just isnt doing enough to promote their bills... saying the world is not fair and no one will listen to me when you are a politician is just dumb)

anyways, now lets take a closer look at the proposed amendment:
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

and compare it to the original (i.e. current):
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

hmm... something look familiar? Its BASICALLY THE SAME THING isn't it? Sure we can argue the intricacies of wording, and yes, i agree, the world can live or die by single words, however, come on.. is this the change that so much fuss is being made about? Is this the change that is currently costing tax payers millions of dollars!??? i mean, GET A GRIP....

however, the amendment does also include a couple of other subsections that read:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

Which I interpret to mean you are not allowed to smack them as a form of punishment, but only as a preventative measure (e.g. if a child is about to kill someone, you can tackle them and haul them to the ground, but if they had already killed someone, you are not allowed to smack them for having done something bad)

having said that, the new "amendment" does explain the circumstances in which "reasonable" force may be used more clearly and directly although I am not at all a fan, or a supporter of, subsections two and three.

Now we also hear a lot of people coming out and saying " the police will exercise their common sense and wont just prosecute decent parents" ... well, isnt that the same as the current bill? the courts decide if the force used is "reasonable", why are we taking it out of the hands of the courts (whose job it is to interpret the law) and handing it over to the police (who are supposed to enforce the LETTER of the law)? Isn't that limiting what the courts can do, and why do we want that?

I guess I can say that I am on the fence at the moment, although leaning towards the whole "this is a complete waste of time and money" side. The wording and the subtleties leave too much up for interpretation for my liking. A power-crazy cop or crown prosecutor can come along and just indict and presoceture every parent who lightly smacked their kids. People will counter that statement with "people will use common sense and will not go around indicting and prosecuting people for nothing" which is a fair point. But cant that exact same argument be applied to the current reading of section 59?
People will use common sense, and no one in their right minds will say belting your kid with a lead pipe five times over the head is "reasonable force"


Arthur

China: A Democracy in Fifty Years

Currently, there is a lot of debate about China. All countries in the world tolerate China for one very simple reason. They have 1.6 billion people. That is it. No other reason. 1.6 billion people mean 1.6 million toothbrushes that they have to buy every month. It means their military is larger than most country's populations. It means money. And the world is run on money. Simple as that.

Why do the Chinese people tolerate China then? Why do a people allow their government to repress them, and take away their most basic human rights? Why do they not care about the lack of freedom of speech? Very simple reason as well. Money.

China has been at war for almost a hundred years. From the turn of the 20th Century when the Ching Dynasty was overthrown, and the Republic of China was created, China has been at war. After the official creation of the Republic of China in 1911, China was embroiled in civil war for the next twenty years. Local warlords would declare themselves the King of their region. After the last of the uprising finished in 1929, Japan promptly invaded Mancuria in 1931. This was followed by almost 20 years of War with the Japanese, as well as World War II. Immediately following WWII, another Civil War embodied China. This time it was the Communist Uprising. It wasnt until 1957 with the National Party's withdrawal to Taiwan that official war was over.

The next thirty years were one of the darkest in China's history. With the cultural revolution, the people had nothing. It wasnt until the economic reforms of Deng Xiao Ping that Chinese people, for the first time in almost 400 years, had a chance to make money.

And make money they will. For the next fifty years, the Chinese community will be interested in making money, and nothing else. Its basic human nature. For 400 years China has watched while the world developed around them. The industrial revolution in Europe meant the once technologically advanced Chinese were suddenly on the back foot. Now, they are on the rise again, and they are reveling in it, and so they should.

However, another basic human instinct is to be greedy. People always want more. At the moment, the Chinese people are pre-occupied with making money. Thats all they care about almost. However, in fifty years, as the community matures, their interests will shift. Their priorities will change. All of sudden, the human rights that seem so unimportant now will become extremely important. People will start to realise that money isnt everything. As a kid, all you want is the newest toys. As you grow up, you want more, you want love, you want relationships. The same goes for a society. Its for this reason that I will say, in fifty years time, China will become a Democracy.

Watch this space

Growing Pains - The price of Democracy

Currently in the world we hear the word "Democracy" being cried out from all fronts. The self-appointed sheriff of the world, the US, has been pushing for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, to name the well-publicized few. However, some other places such as The Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Tonga, may not be getting as much publicity as the previous three are in North America, are non-the-less making huge strides towards democracy.

How does true democracy come about? We hear it being tossed around like its the best system in the world. Is it? A little known fact is that in the past 100 years, only six countries have remained democratic continuously. These are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and Sweden. Countries such as Germany, France, Spain have all endured patches of dictatorship or fascism at one stage or another in the past hundred years, so is it really that correct for these countries to be joining in the forceful democratization of other nations? Granted, they are not as outspoken as the US and UK, but they still do it! If they were allowed to develop democracy slowly and "naturally", why can't other countries be allowed the same luxury?

So what about the US and UK? Their "rants" on the greatness of democracy are well publicized. In fact, I believe that in some cases, they are over-publicized, but that is not the point of this discussion. The point is, the US and UK have all made numerous mistakes in their past on their path towards democratization. The UK dominated the world with the creation of the British Empire, sometimes brutally, as the Indians can attest to. The US had a period of slavery and then social segregation. In fact in the US, it wasnt until a 1973 judgment by federal judge William C . Keady that ended the segregation of black and white Americans completely. Before the US had completely ended their own racial segregation, they imposed economic sanctions on Aprtheid South Africa in 1969 with UN resolution 1761 for being "a threat to international peace and security". Hypocritical? you tell me!

It is my belief that democracy is the way to go. You can never please everyone, so the best solution is to please the majority, isn't it? However, in order for democracy to function properly, it must be allowed to develop. Forcing something onto a country will always cause resentment, even if it is something that the country wants. No matter how desperate a country is, their autonomy is most important. Iraq is a perfect example. Did the Iraqis want Saddam Hussien to leave? Of course they did. The overwhelming support for his death sentence recently attests to that fact. However, 89% of Iraqis also believe the US led coalition should pull out of Iraq(source). The same source also shows that the Iraqis believe the US "liberation army" is an "occupying force." Evolution is an integral part of human nature. One cannot learn to run before one can walk. Having democracy forced onto them is not the way to go.