We could not help feeling a smidgeon of sympathy for Herald columnist, John Roughan when reading his piece today. He is taking a position on the smacking referendum that is contrary to the vast majority of the great unwashed, and that carries a price.
When a rationalist, such as Roughan, argues against widely held views, it inevitably means that he has to claim wisdom, insight, or perspicacity that is beyond the sight of ordinary mortals. Roughan, of course, does not have the benefit of divine revelation. He has only his superior reasoning powers--with which he deigns to grace us in his piece. But when most ordinary people disagree one is forced into adopting a posture of presenting oneself as being extraordinarily very clever.
The piece commences with a conspiracy theory--a hallmark of every sophisticated elite. According to our mentor the ordinary man would do well to look twice at public advocates, such as Bob McCoskrie who are campaigning against the criminalisation of smacking, as having a hidden agenda--a sinister agenda. It is creepy. Yes, you read it here first. Roughan is so sharp and intelligent that he sees beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals. He is able to look into hearts and minds and is able to discern true motives. And he does not like what he sees.
There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail. What exactly do the citizens behind this initiative, men like Bob McCoskrie, mean by "good parental correction"?But a good, card carrying rationalist, such as Roughan, will not rest his case just on suspicions and innuendo. He will buttress it with some sharp analysis. We await, breathless. Well, it's as plain as the nose on my face, says Roughan, that the law already allows and endorses parents smacking their children. "Well, duh," he says, "nothing could be more plain." He points out the following sections in the current law:
"Every parent of a child, and every person in the place of a parent of a child, is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:Now, says one of the sharpest minds of our age, clearly this covers all kinds of infant behaviour.
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."
For example: Could a parent really be criminalised for a light smack to stop a child running across a road or putting a finger near a light socket? I doubt it. See 'a' above.Well, there you have it then. This is where we dive down to the real depths of insight where only the intellectual elite are able to go. Even a dumbass can see that the law allows and endorses smacking of children, says Roughan. So, McCoskrie and his nefarious band must have something else in mind--something they don't want you to know about. This is the creepy part.
Could parents be prosecuted for smacking the hand of a child taking things from a shop shelf? No, see 'b'. Or taking something from another kid? See 'c'. Hitting someone? See 'a' again.
Throwing a tantrum in a supermarket? 'c'. Fighting? 'a' or 'c'. Teasing? 'c'. Swearing? 'c'. Insolence? 'c'. If those clauses do not cover everything, the last, 'd', seems wide enough to deal with all persistent disobedience.
A smack may not be the best way to deal with any of these but the new Section 59 (1) of the Crimes Act permits reasonable force if a parent must.
What? Help us, oh great one! We beg you. We are just ordinary people. What do you see?
Well, all right then. If I must. We are going to get a bit subtle now--but that is what a prodigy like me has to do all the time--so stay with me, unwashed one.
Mr McCoskrie's group is more interested in a second subsection, which says "Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."We are hanging in there, Mr Roughan. So we can do all that smacking of children for all the things you mentioned. But we cannot smack them so as to correct them? So, what does it mean to correct a child? "At last. Finally," says Mr Roughan, "we have got to the point which my rapier like intellect took me to hours ago. Once again, it is as plain as my nose, what correction means. It has now become a technical legal and judicial term. It does not mean what it used to mean. It means something different--which only elites understand. And, I hasten to add, nefarious bastards, like McCoskrie. Although he is not part of the elite, he is a malicious clever little devil. He knows what it means, which is why he is creepily trying to change the law."
Ah, correction. What is that?
Mr McCoskrie says it means the same sort of smack and hence the confusion. But lawmakers do not deliberately compose contradictions. They must mean something different by subsection (2). That is how judges will reason if they are asked to interpret the word correction.
It is clear that judges, politicians, police, CYFS, and other assorted members of the intelligentsia see what ordinary, uneducated, rustic rubes do not.
As the word [correction] is used in public policy nowadays it means serious systematic punishment. (It also means "delayed" punishment, but we will only throw that adjective in later.) The penal arm of the state is now called the Department of Corrections. A prison is a "Corrections Facility".Lightbulb! "Correction" has become a technical term, meaning "serious systematic punishment". How perspicacious is that! How come you see that, Mr Roughan, and we ordinary people do not?
Well, duh! The prison department is called the Department of Corrections. A prison is a place of serious, delayed, systematic punishment. Therefore, "correction" is a term referring to "serious systematic, delayed punishment". Therefore, when the law prohibits the use of smacking for correction, it is prohibiting its use for "serious systematic delayed punishment". All us intellectuals and elites see it right away. And we also see that McCoskrie and his mob are trying to reinstate "serious systematic delayed punishment" of children--which is why we find him creepy and sinister.
So, Dear Enlightened One, we are now coming to see more clearly. All correction of children, of whatever kind, must be equally wrong and illegal. Put bluntly--for that is what us uneducated people do--it is now both immoral and illegal to correct children, period. "Correction" does not mean discipline, training, education, or instruction--which in our more primitive world it does--but it now means "serious systematic delayed punishment". It must be equally illegal to use talking, reasoning, physical restraint, "time out", or any other regular, planned, consistent and diligent techniques for correction--for correction means "serious systematic delayed punishment". Gotcha.
It must be so neat to be so insightful and clever. For a fleeting second a slight supercilious smile appears on Mr Roughan's face. Yes--and here's the real point. Let us be very, very clear that those truly evil people like McCoskrie have a hidden agenda which us truly enlightened one's can see a mile off. They want to reintroduce "serious systematic delayed punishment" of children, aka "correction":
Delayed, systematic parental correction is the old-fashioned hiding. It was often called a "good hiding".Unmasked. McCoskrie wants to flog children. Literally. In a delayed manner. In a systematic fashion. Because we all now know what correction really means, don't we?
That is what the recent amendment to the Crimes Act has criminalised. That, I suspect, is the "good parental correction" we are being asked to endorse in this referendum.
The ritual thrashings that children used to receive "when your father comes home", may be rare today but not in some sections of society we hear.
Those who initiated the referendum know what the new law says. They know it permits reasonable force for all the preventive situations they are fond of citing.
They pretend it does not because they could not attract majority support for the restoration of the right to flog children. Don't be deceived by them.
We think we have just seen one of the most specious, duplicitous, deceitful bits of empty sophistry foisted upon the New Zealand public since Maui fished up the North Island. It is so bad, one wonders whether it would be both kind and charitable to believe that Mr Roughan "under the influence" when he wrote the piece.
In any event, he has a lot of work to do, educating and convincing people of his peculiar perspective on the English language. He should educate CYFS staff to begin with. Then move on to the entire police force. The justices and the courts will then need his attention. And, there is the small matter of eighty percent of the rest of the population.
It's a big price to pay--but you get that when you are part of an elite.
2 comments:
Would it be too much to ask if such idiots just answered the question, without reading whatever passes for intellectual analysis nowadays?
Should a smack be illegal? Yes or No?
Don't worry about what the law says, don't worry about how the police and courts may choose to interpret it, just come out and tell politicians if you think a parent who smacks their child should be considered a person breaking the law?
The "No" answer is not as obvious as 80% of parents might think. If this muppet is looking for conspiracies, he might want to consider why a small group of people want to make all forms of discipline (correction) illegal. That's a pretty big concept, and one a little hard for him to handle, so I ask, quite simply for people to just answer the question.
There is something very creepy about this smacking referendum now arriving in the mail.
Yeah, I always wondered how those envelopes got there. Perhaps pixies, or perhaps every letterbox is wired to receive email and there's a printer hidden in the pointy roof?
Post a Comment