The Duty of the Family to Impose Appropriate "Violence" upon Children

The State Has a Duty to Encourage Families to Impose Lawful Violence Upon Children

Below is an excerpt from a submission made to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee considering the removal of Section 59. As all New Zealand readers will know, Section 59 of the Crimes Act permitted parents to use reasonable force in disciplining and correcting their children.

The Parliament was deeply divided on the issue, with over 80 percent of the electorate polled indicating their opposition to the proposed change. At the last hour, a compromise was reached, which in effect meant there was a presumption of guilt if any parent exercised (light) physical discipline upon a child. Whether to prosecute or not was left to the discretion of the police.

We believe this piece of iniquitous legislation will do more to undermine the institution of the family in the community than any other in living memory, apart from the introduction of no-fault divorce, and the Domestic Purposes Benefit where the state pays for single mothers to bear and raise children.

In any event, the repeal shows the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of Athens at its best. It demonstrates that Athens has no doctrine of the family. It does not know what a family is. As one cynic observed, Athens believes a family is two lesbians and a budgerigar. But there is a more sinister dynamic at work. Underneath it all, Athens does not care if it does not have a doctrine of a family--whether in law or anything else. The bottom line for Athens is that the State is the real parent and the people are its children.

Cindy Kiro, the current Commissioner for Children in New Zealand vacuously and stupidly talks of "our children" reflecting her view that children belong to society and its institutionalised reflection--the state--not to parents. She probably has no idea of the implications of the phrase. Nevertheless her view is the standard Athenian line of propaganda.

The excerpt below reflects a more Christian view on the responsibilities and duties of parents towards children, and the duties and responsibilities of the state toward parents.

Children, Like All Citizens, Must be Subject to the Sanctions of Lawful Force

"The abuse of children is utterly detestable and those who abuse children should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

"However, like all citizens children are born and raised within a framework of law and order. Law and order is the fundamental bedrock of civilization—and children are fully entitled to enjoy its privileges and protections. Like all citizens, when children act contrary to the establishment of order, they must be subject to the sanctions of lawful force.

"Those who oppose the use of force upon children are either naïve or disingenuous in their view. We all live subject to force and the sanctions of the law--and children are no exception. We cannot, on the one hand, extol the vital necessity of law and order, without necessarily extolling the virtues of the force which provides sanctions for the law and which maintains, protects and defends order. The imposition of force, therefore, is essential to the well-being of the community and all who are in it.

"Moreover, the imposition of force is necessarily and inescapably violent, insofar as violence inevitably involves the imposition of force upon another. Granted there are two kinds of violence. One kind is unrestrained, vicious, uncontrolled. The other is ordered, structured, controlled, measured--but violence nonetheless.

"Society cannot exist without violence. It is inescapable. The only issue is what kind of violence we are going to have. Either society will practice controlled and structured violence through the administration of law and order, or it will have lawless violence with the attendant destruction of the fabric of society itself.

"Children are entitled to enjoy the privileges and protections of law and order. They must be subject to order, and to lawful force which is a vital constituent of the rule of law and the maintenance of order.

"Parents are responsible to promulgate family law and order. They also must be granted sanction by the criminal law to impose the necessary force to ensure that their family law is respected and their family order is maintained. Parents are the first “state”, school, and community that children experience. It is in the home that children must be taught respect for law and order in general, that to break family law will bring sanctions upon them, and that they have a responsibility to maintain family order.

"The range of sanctions within a particular family’s law system are naturally wide and varied between families. They will draw upon family history and culture, family religion, and traditional wisdom.

"The role of the state is self-evident. Firstly, the state must fulfill its responsibility to maintain law and order in the community and it must therefore sanction and apply lawful force to maintain law and order. Secondly, the state must respect the maintenance of law and order in families. It must, in this regard, respect the multi-cultural diversity within family law systems. And it must support parents in the establishment of their respective law and order systems within their families, and support parents in the imposition of lawful force to maintain family law and order systems.

"Thirdly, the responsibility of the state is to set boundaries upon all family law and order systems to ensure that parents do not engage in any criminal activity as they carry out their responsibilities to raise their children within the framework of law and order which is meaningful to that family.

"The proposal to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act represents a revolutionary change in the previously established law and order structures. It makes the imposition of force upon children subject to criminal charges of assault. Therefore, the Bill represents a fundamental change in the role of the state towards the community. Rather than the state fulfilling its duty to support family law and order systems and the sanctions of force which go with those systems, the Bill removes the state’s protection and support for reasonable family force by making it illegal.

"We note here that the promoters of the Bill claim that they are not intending to outlaw occasional smacking. However, in this they are either being deliberately disingenuous or extremely naïve. By removing the state’s support and protection for the imposition of reasonable force to sanction diverse family law systems, all force exercised within families will in principle be a form of assault. The intentions of the promoters of the Bill--if passed--will by then be totally irrelevant.

"The end result of the State abdicating its duty and responsibility to support and encourage lawful violence in the maintenance of law and order will be that lawless and unrestrained violence will increase--and increase markedly. This fruit will be fifteen to twenty years in the ripening: the reality that it will not happen tomorrow will be used by the facile as a justification for the change. But it will happen nonetheless--inevitably and remorselessly."

No fault divorce and the DPB took thirty years to produce New Zealand's underclass of welfare slaves. That problem is now intractable. There is no hope of change or transformation from within Athens itself. We expect that in time the repeal of Section 59 will exacerbate the rise of violent crime and expressions of random violence exponentially. The only real and realistic hope is to repudiate Athens and turn to Christ, the Saviour of the world.

"What harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? . . . . Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord and do not touch what is unclean. And I will welcome you and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty." (II Corinthians 6:15--18)

John Tertullian