“2,4,6,8, WE DON’T WANT YOUR NANNY STATE!”

280968.jpgOn Wednesday 28 March, after a mere 2 weeks of planning, a diverse group of people gathered in Wellington’s Civic Square to protest the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the anti-smacking bill. The left-wing spin is that Bradford’s Bill is about preventing child abuse and perhaps secondarily about ‘sending a message’ to stop using excessive physical force against children because it is poor parenting. However, the minor changes needed to clarify ‘reasonable force’ are apparently beyond politicians in New Zealand’s current Parliament, and so we have ended up with a muddled bill which, according to both the police and Bradford herself, makes parents who choose to smack into criminals. It seems the politicos just couldn’t resist the opportunity to extend the long arm of the state into ordinary homes in an attempt to nationalise New Zealand’s children.

signs.jpg
Libertarianz members Luke Howison, Phil Howison, Richard Goode and Wim Verhoeven in Civic Square before the march.

And so it was that we gathered to exercise our democratic right of protest against the bill. The Wellington march was a great success, with around 500+ protesters turning up carrying placards, including many children from two Wellington Christian schools. The Wellington Libertarianz crew turned up in force, as well as members and supporters of Act, Family First, Destiny Church etc, all united (this time) against Nanny State. And I really mean against nanny state, with the chant as above and Phil’s not-so-subtle sign “Down With Nanny State” getting reported in the international media.

At first I was a little unnerved by some of my fellow protesters. There were teenagers and families quoting the Bible (‘if you spare the rod you hate your children’) and emphasising the religious parts of the national anthem when we sang it, which made me remember just how religious our heritage actually is. israeli.jpgThen there was the old guy carrying an Israeli flag – the link between Israeli sovereignty and New Zealand parenting escapes me. I worried a bit that some of these people simply wanted to follow the Bible, not minimise governmental interference in their lives.

I soon realised, though, that the truly odd people were those on the opposing side. There were about 30 of these anti-smacking people out and about in favour of the Bill, including a very tall, rotund, confrontational chap who aggressively questioned us about our attitudes to smacking. This was a common theme in pro-repeal people – they were often aggressive in presenting their anti-aggressive opinions!

Overall, though, the pro-repeal group possessed little imagination and the limit of their counter-protest was blowing a whistle loudly and trying to chant, unsuccessfully, over the main protest. Interestingly, their signs referred repeatedly to smacking itself as wrong and abusive – despite (some of) the spin from Helen and Co. that smacking is fine and that parents who smack won’t be arrested.

parliament.jpg
The march proceeded along classic Wellington march lines: Civic Square, Willis St, Lambton Quay, and onto Parliament grounds.

Once the march had arrived at Parliament, Lindsay Perigo gave a rousing speech, followed by ACT’s Heather Roy, United Future’s Larry Baldock, National’s Chester Borrows, Christine Rankin and Family First’s Bob McCoskrie. The pro-repeal protestors blew a whistle and started a fairly pathetic chant, which was all singularly unsuccessful in disrupting the main protest.

During the speeches I relaxed and became a lot more comfortable with the religious component of our protest – they were wholeheartedly accepting of Lindsay’s anti-state message and very friendly after the march. Some people from our parents church had travelled all the way from Taranaki and recognised Phil and I.

A great photo of Phil (right) and myself illustratd Scoop’s front-page story.

One interesting point to note is the media response to the march: although the numbers were clearly hugely in favour of the pro-smacking side (500 vs 30), the news reported ‘clashes’ between us, essentially trying to portray the two sides as approximately equal. There is a difference between being unbiased, and portraying a minority viewpoint as larger or more successful than it really was. Mitch notes, ” Half an hour later, while we Libz were across the road at the backbencher solving the world’s problems, Duncan Garner from TV3 was still enthusiastically interviewing the pro-Bradford crowd. That speaks volumes doesn’t it?”

In the Scoop article, the editor has selected pictures of the oddest-looking older men in the crowd to make the protest look like it consisted largely of a bunch of dodgy old Christian men. It also has approximately equal numbers of pictures of pro- and anti-smacking protestors, as if there were equal numbers of us. My friend Dominic commented, “That article is pretty poor journalism … it doesn’t even try to keep a level tone. It’s legitimate satire, sure, but it’s not exactly news.”mitch-lees.jpg

Media bias aside, Libertarians Lindsay Perigo, Mitch Lees (right) and Sandra deserve a lot of credit for these democratic displays against this absurdly garbled nanny-state bill. The simple act of Mitch stepping up to organise a single march led to the inspiration to organise several marches in other towns and cities, including Rangiora, Fielding and Christchurch. More marches are currently in the planning stages in the lead-up to the final stages of the bill.

  • ScoopIt
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • TailRank

13 Responses to “Smacking March Report”

I think not only is the bill unnecessary this bill and other’s focussed around the labour governments time in office are now starting to encroach on civil liberties.
This bill WILL NOT do anything to stop child abuse as it is targeting innocent New Zealanders who discipline their children with a smack as a last resort.

It is already illegal to beat children or anyone in New Zealand so this amendment to the crimes act is not necessary at all.
I would go further to say that laws should be passed to accomodate the majority of New Zealanders and NOT the minority.

In saying this the type of people who abuse partners and indeed their children are not going to give a toss that it is now against the law to smack children!

Furthermore if you talk to anyone who works for CYFS MOST are opposed to this bill, I think that kind of says something, so in saying that how are our already overloaded organs of state supposed to police this?

Maybe we should take some of the many Highway patrol units off their revenue gathering duties to help out with General duties ?!

To Helen Clark and Sue Bradford Pull your head’s in you are commiting Political suicide!!!!

Where do you sign the petition on this gross political and social injustice?
Come on NZ lets fight this!

Gravatar

Great work everyone!.

The media bias you describe should not come as a surprise.

The News media in this country is (with a few exceptions) the mouthpiece of the Labour party. It has always been thus.

Gravatar

What a load of rubbish!!! Phil and Luke, you have absolutely no idea of what removal of this bill means. If you consider using a ‘riding crop’ and ‘hog tying’ reasonable force, then shame on you. ‘Down with the nanny state’???…I’d rather they step in before these kids grow up and end up in our prisons. Either way the state is forced to look after them…or ‘nanny’ them as you so delicately put it.

Do you seriously think the police are going to be arresting people over a ‘light smack’?…get real. We have copyright laws too but everyone is still copying music and videos. I don’t see the cops arresting them.

The problem here is, that every case of abuse STARTED with the ‘light smack’ you so vehemently defend. It’s those people who will end up in court without the S59 defense you so vigorously want them to have.

Gravatar

I don’t know the full facts of that case and neitehr do you. What we do know is that 12 ordinary men and women heard the case and took less than an hour to decide that the force was actually reasonable. As for the hog-tying, that is a different case which has not yet been decided, and it isn’t directly relevant to the riding-crop case.

Down with the nanny state. Yes, I blame the nanny state for a lot of violence and problems because it tries to insulate people from the consequences of their actions. Actually, how many kids who are taken by CYFS and raised by strangers end up in prison? Does the state stepping in actually make it less likely, or more likely?

Yes, I think there will be cases where people are arrested for a light smack. There will be many more cases where people lose custody of their own children as a result. You seem to place an awful lot of trust in the police. But it isn’t just the police. You would have to trust that sulking children won’t complain and exaggerate, ex-partners won’t make vindictive complaints, and that Crown Law won’t step in to force prosecution of marginal cases. Why not make the law clearer rather than putting an extra burden on the police?

Yes, people are arrested for copyright piracy. But that’s completely irrelevant.

Your last point is meaningless. It would be just as accurate to say that cases of abuse started with a stern talking-to that developed into verbal abuse, time-out that escalated into locking the kid in a closet, or an attempt to reason that turned into emotional manipulation and abuse. Light smacking has nothing to do with abuse, and there are many ways to abuse a child that don’t involve physical violence. There are also many ways to deal with abuse that don’t criminalize innocent parents.

A final point: smacking has been a normal part of raising children for thousands of years, and the vast majority of parents do so on occasion. Most parents are not abusive. You claim that abuse starts with a light smack, but that claim bears no relation to reality.

Gravatar

Your right, I don’t know the facts of the second case, nor do I proclaim to, but the stepfather has already plead guilty to the charge, which means it can be taken as fact.

As for the ‘riding crop’ case, the mere idea that 12 ordinary men and women decided this use of ‘force’ was reasonable isn’t the issue. Its that they found it ‘reasonable’ and the parents are back in court AGAIN.

“I blame the nanny state for a lot of violence and problems because it tries to insulate people from the consequences of their actions” ..this is a strange comment coming from you because, isn’t that precisely what the s59 bill seeks to do? Isn’t it insulating this stupid woman and her husband from the consequences of their actions?

It isn’t a matter of whether or not I trust the police, it’s a matter of doing simple maths. They won’t have the man-power to enforce and arrest EVERY ‘light-smacking’ incident. Just like they don’t have the man-power to enforce the ‘copyright law’ as it is written.

As for the ‘exaggerated, vindictive’ cases you seem to think are going to be clogging up our court system, that can happen with or without the s59 bill.

As for the issue of allowing a ‘light smack’. What constitutes a ‘light smack’? When it doesn’t leave a mark? When the child isn’t hurt by it? If this is the case then what’s the point of doing it in the first place?

Re your final point. Killing people in Iran and Iraq has been a normal part of their lives for thousands of year too, does it make it right? For thousands of years it was assumed ‘women’ were subservient to ‘men’ too, but that myth was soon put to rest. Don’t look now, but one of them is sitting in the Prime Ministers chair…Just because it’s ‘normal’ doesn’t necessarily make it right, now does it?

Gravatar

Because the second case is irrelevant when discussing the first. It just doesn’t follow that even if the mother is guilty of assault in the second case that the jury was wrong to acquit in the first, or that the second assault was a consequence of the events leading up to the first case.

It’s not relevant whether the police have the manpower to arrest 85% of NZ parents, either. The fact that their actions will be criminalised makes them vulnerable, especially to having their children confiscated by CYFS. Even if only a few parents are prosecuted for smacking it is an injustice.

What’s a light smack? Also irrelevant. The difference between smacking and beating is obvious. And I trust a jury of 12 to make that distinction based on reasonable force.

I’m not a conservative (or a misogynist as you seem to assume), but we should think carefully before throwing away long-established traditions. Society evolves. It is better for social change to happen gradually by a process of evolution, rather than by wholesale state intervention.

Gravatar

[...] The only heartening thing about this whole business is that 80% of New Zealanders were against the bill, despite the best efforts of the media to spin the bill into A Good Thing. [...]

Gravatar

Hi All.
Quite frankly, if I ever found myself in the position of smacking my children I would seek some professonal help. I dont have any children – but if I did lots of things they would do would annoy me. When a child behaves badly, my first instict is to beat the crap out of them. Use my fists and palms, push them around and bully and force them to conform to my will.
I am not prepared however to perpetuate the cycle of violence. Dont worry – I wont ever hurt my kids. I just wish I had someone to protect me when I was a child.

Regards.

Gravatar

[...] Pro-Smacking Rally [...]

Gravatar

[...] Pro-Smacking Rally [...]

Gravatar

You say, “all united (this time) against Nanny State. And I really mean against nanny state,”…”It seems the politicos just couldn’t resist the opportunity to extend the long arm of the state into ordinary homes in an attempt to nationalise New Zealand’s children.” I get the impression your argument is more about the ‘Nanny State’ rather than the ‘child protection law’ – Yes I agree with you, get rid of the Nanny State. Who are they to pay for my child’s education?…Who are they to dish out Benefits to those who can’t feed their kids?…and How dare they provide housing for those who are less fortunate than ourselves?..Omg why did they ever stop teachers from hitting the kids (it’s part of good teaching – isn’t it)?..And of course, how dare they provide ‘student loans’ for Tertiary Training? (Get the point!)You like so many other suckers in this country got caught up by the media hype.

I draw yor attention to..”A 55-year-old man who beat his daughter over the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to his Mormon church “does not understand what all the fuss is about”, Hastings District Court has heard.” (NZ Herald, 11/07/09)

I for one am grateful, the anti-smacking law is in place to stop people like this.

You need to stop thinking inside your own ‘privileged’ upbringing, and think about those kids out there who aren’t as lucky. I challenge you to spend a day in a South Auckland School talking to those kids. Would you still feel the same way I wonder?

Gravatar

3mmz: Yes, our argument is more about “Nanny State” than any one law. I actually think free education, benefits, state housing and student loans do far more harm than the anti-smacking law.

Your last three paragraphs make no sense and border on being personally offensive.

Gravatar

Hello to All the Guests and Members,
My computer worked not correctly, too much mistakes and buggs. Help me, please to fix errors on my computer.
My operation system is Windows 2003.
Thanks,
cyncArbinny

Gravatar

Something to say?