Anti-smacking bill opponents exhibit wacky logic

Colin Craig. Photo/File

What is it with people and the now expunged section 59 of the Crimes Act?

It is still referred to as the "anti-smacking bill" even though it was actually a gap in the law that allowed an assault on a child to be defended as being a form of discipline.

The removal of this piece of legislation means someone who is violent to a disobedient child can no longer use that clause to try and justify their actions.

We do not accept the excuse that the "wife/partner/girlfriend was not giving respect and doing what she was told so I belted her one", but there are still those that insist it is not the same when applied to children.

Many of those who think it is okay to hit children would, if an adult hit them, be very upset and call the police expecting an assault charge to be laid. This betrays the rather dodgy underlying rationale that it is all about big people hitting little people because they can.

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig in New Zealand and Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Australia have been vocal on the notion that hitting children when they are naughty is a good thing.

There is considerable research, presented by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Paediatric and Child Health Division, that shows physical punishment is not effective. The short-term message to the child is "that hurts and I do not understand why the people who claim to love me hit me", and the long-term message is if you lose your temper and get angry it is okay to hit people. Neither of these messages is helpful.

To take a quote from the RACP position statement on physical punishment of children: "When a big child hits a small child in the playground, we call him a bully; five years later he punches a woman for her handbag and is called a mugger; later still, when he slugs a workmate who insults him, he is called a troublemaker; but when he becomes a father and hits his tiresome, disobedient or disrespectful child, we call him a disciplinarian."

It is not clear why the political right and religious fundamentalists are so fixated on the notion that the moral fabric of society will unravel if parents stop using physical punishment, but they are obsessed with the disappearance of section 59.

For Colin Craig, who has expressed doubts about the moon landing, it is all another conspiracy. It may be that, like the moon landing, he thinks it was all faked? The parliamentary debates and vote were all done in a studio out behind Parliament using puppets from the Backbenchers pub?

On a different matter, I read with interest in the Chronicle the experience of those who have chosen to ditch the television. Bravo! It is a wise move.

TV watching is like so many other things - you don't know where the time goes until you stop. Turn it off and suddenly the evening holds possibilities. You could do other things - even have a conversation.

We gave up on TV a long time ago. Not because we thought it was worthy but because there was so little worth watching. There seemed to be an endless stream of dross with no redeeming features, competing with advertising. Even the news, trying hard to be showbiz, was no longer entertaining and the weather was going to happen whether we watched it or not, so we left the TV off.

I do like to read a good newspaper, though.

Terry Sarten is a writer, musician and social worker - which makes him a cultural mongrel. Feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz