KEY POINTS:
There's been a lot of talk about smacking this week.
Some Neanderthal via a website has volunteered on our behalf to give Greens MP Sue Bradford a good hard punch in the face, "hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process". This champion of ours feels Bradford needs to understand the difference between smacking and real violence. Bradford's campaign to prevent parents or children's guardians giving kids a good beating whenever they please is obviously threatening a few bullies. Bradford is even volunteered by our anonymous thug as a suitable candidate for assassination.
No doubt our website child-beater believes all problems can be resolved with a smack and if that doesn't work a sharp punch to the head is a follow-up option. If the child doesn't get into line after that it seems a killing may be necessary.
I had some twit say to me this week it was his "God-given" right to smack his kids whenever he felt they needed it. He even ventured the silliness that it was his way of showing them he loved them. This self-described "family man" ranted about Bradford and her "anti-smacking bill" being the cause of the breakdown of discipline and respect in society.
I'm sure some men miss the days when women and their children were, by law, their property to do with what they pleased. Bradford's campaign to force them to think of options other than violence must make them, well, violent.
Dog-trainers insist that the only way to train successfully is to always praise good behaviour and ignore bad behaviour. Under no circumstances are you allowed to hit or abuse the dog. It seems there are some people who still think kids can be treated less well than an animal.
I know as parents we get angry sometimes at something our child is doing or has done. When we are tired or stressed we may be tempted to lash out. But let's not kid ourselves that hitting our children is a good thing. Any violence by an individual against another is wrong whatever the justification. At best it breeds fear in children and at worst teaches them that it's alright to hurt others to get what you want. Isn't that how wars start?
Years from now we will look back in amazement that we tolerated adults assaulting their children in the same way that slave owners had the right to assault their human property. The sooner we refuse to tolerate parents beating children and put this behaviour in the same unacceptable category as hitting a spouse or an employer assaulting employees (as was once allowed) the better society will be. I know it will be a strain on most of us having to come up with alternatives to violence. But using your brain rather than your fists might be a good lesson to pass on to our children, don't you think?
And to the keyboard bully who got off threatening Bradford, you should know that your intimidation has made the passing of her bill almost a certainty.
One "pro-smacking" politician came back to Parliament this week after an enforced holiday and cast his vote against Bradford's bill. Taito Phillip Field voted to support violence against children and was keen to promote Christian values in the debate. Why is it that politicians who seem to be the most pious seem to land up in sleaze? There appears to be no shame or embarrassment on his part that he's been sitting overseas on a beach for months on $3000 a week paid by us. Field will, of course, say that he had no choice as he was suspended by his parliamentary colleagues. But that is just an excuse.
On the week that he agreed to take paid leave from Parliament, 500 of his constituents, mostly Polynesian, were locked out of their jobs in his Mangere electorate. The Australian supermarket giant that owns half of the supermarkets in New Zealand gave him a gift to redeem himself. For almost a month these Progressive employees had a 24-hour picket in the middle of his electorate. Field's likely successor as local MP, William Sio, visited the picket line every day. Where was Field?
If Field had any chance of redemption or winning back his seat, he blew it at this point. Imagine if he had admitted he may have made some errors of judgment and apologised to his constituents and his party for his actions. Then, instead of flying off to a warmer climate overseas, he parked his caravan on the picket line with 500 of his local constituents for the next month. That would have connected with his electorate and the Pacific Island community.
It would have been a media circus and he could have rehabilitated himself overnight. Imagine him telling the media that though he made some mistakes they shouldn't waste their time on him but instead should be concerned with the plight of his local workers being exploited by a multi-national corporation - as he was. Labour then may never have been able to remove him from his seat whether he is charged or not.
So when he came back to Parliament lashing out at his former colleagues with the look of a doomed man it could have been so different. Even if he was forced out of Parliament he could have preserved a reputation of some standing as John Tamihere has.
So when Field voted this week for the right to give someone a smack, he could have taken the opportunity to look in the mirror and found a suitable candidate to practise his principles upon.
