Case in point: the woman who used a riding crop on her son -- the woman pilloried by Lynne Pillay, Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and numerous other people who should have known better as a "child beater" -- explains the difference herself, in her own words, in her own case, and points out that none of the many commenters who have used her case for political effect can lie straight in bed; and she points out too that three years later (in a foreshadowing of what is to come should Bradford's Bill ever be successful) CYFS are still holding her son hostage.
Three years! Even the Iranians let their hostages out sooner than that. You can see the YouTube video here, at the Family Integrity site.
UPDATE: The woman and her partner appeared in court today on two charges of assault and intent to injure, in relation to an incident involving another son. Stuff has a court report here. I have to say that I can only agree with Russell:
What kind of denial do you have to be in, when you make a video statement likeBut does this son's alleged beating change the basic point above?
this and have it released on the same day as a court appearance where you know
there will be an account given that you and your husband punched, slapped,
kicked in the kidneys and hogtied your teenage son, who was prevented from
calling his birth father for help and escaped only by running in front of a
passing car?
28 comments:
Anyone who thinks using implements on one's offspring as punishment is acceptable should also be abjured from comment.
Abused children often wish to return to the adult(s) who perpetrated the crime - this is true for some sexual abuse survivors as well. The dynamic is very complex.
Nice that you agree with the christians on something though---
http://www.stoptherod.net/child-training-tips.html
Read on for family integity tips!
IT wasn't so long ago that using the strap or the cane to discipline school children was fine.
Am I to assume that every single teacher who administered that punishment should be tried for child molestation?
Are their 'victims' in denial about their ordeal?
As a child I once saw one of the rougher kids in my class at Mangakino Primary school assualt a priest with his, not inconsiderable, fists during 'Religious Instruction' class.
Please tell me how you are supposed to (1) defend yourself against such an assault without using violence, (2) discipline a kid like that who quite happily uses violence to get his way (he was the class bully by the way, bloodied may a nose in order to obtain lunch money) and doesn't give a rodent's rectum about detention or time out?
I'd like to know, because in my trip through NZ public school system I met up with a number of violent little bastards who ran riot during class and had a detrimental effect on the ability of their class mates to learn.
The best days for their victims were when their tormentors decided to wag class in order to smoke dope or sniff petrol.
Unfortunately, the government's anti-truancy policies landed that scum right back in class very soon after, leaving them free to amuse themselves by bullying.
Now seeing as this government isn't about to remove itself from Education and that they believe that every child deserves an education no matter how disruptive they are in class; I want to know how you of the 'anti-smacking' Brigade intend to discipline recalcitrant children like Charles Ngamana - cop killer and fellow Mangakino Primary School student.
I mean, if you get your way nobody, not even their parents, will be allowed to lay a finger on them as a first or last resort in the quest to curb their violent behaviour towards their fellow students and teachers.
And even if you remove these children and place them in a 'special school' for naughty boys and girls, how do you propose to keep them their without using force, even a hard shove through a cell-door.
The statistics from places like Otara and Mangere suggest that the kids like the ones I've described aren't a miniscule minority.
"The statistics from places like Otara and Mangere suggest that the kids like the ones I've described aren't a miniscule minority."
No. They're not.
I have to say Peter I am a little disappointed in you.
Using violence against an individual who has not used violence against you I would have thought would be against the very core ideals of libertarianism.
I am sure you do not believe that libertarian principles are reserved for people only above the age of 18.
I note in an earlier post your conclusion that this legislation was of no benefit because “it would not stop child abuse”. Well no one said it would but I’m disappointed because you have decided to oppose this bill on entirely practical grounds and have left your ideology at the door.
The once pure Libertarian has gone conservative on us
Oh and here is this mother back in court:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a11.html
This time the boy ran into the path of an oncoming car with his hands tied and blood all over his face...
Perhaps if she wasn't acquitted the first time this incident woulnd’t have taken place.
"I note in an earlier post your conclusion that this legislation was of no benefit because “it would not stop child abuse”. Well no one said it would"
Except nearly everyone on the anti smacking side....Bradford, Clark etc etc...
They have claimed precisely that ....are you saying otherwise?
James:
In every society since the begining of time there have been people who have abused children.
This law may help reduce abuse but nothing will ever stop abuse completly.
Look everytime a child dies at the hands of thier care giver in this country we ring our hands and ask why and demand something be done.
This is something. Sure it won't fully protect children. But it may start to change attitudes.
See that's the thing about a violent culture. You can't change it with a simple law, you can just make it go away. The real benfits of this law won't be seen the day after it passes or even a year.
It's real benfit will be a generation of children who are born after this law come into affect who a rasied in a society where the use of force to get what you want is seen as totally unacceptable no matter who you are
If the video represents the evidence presented at the horse whip trial, then I would agree with the jury. What she did was reasonable.
If the stuff article represents accurately the evidence of the same family on their road trip...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a11.html
... then if I were on the jury - I would call this assault - as it doesn't meet the definition of reasonable force.
This is a clear case of section 59 working to weed out the assault from the discipline. Just because there is a later case of assault does not mean she was guilty the first time.
Excellent, succinct words from Rusell Brown.
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14.
Being less polite than Brown I will say that to watch libertarians and the right kiss this violent pig of a woman's ass in the service of their own naked ambitions has introduced me to a level of disgust I didn't dream existed.
"Excellent, succinct words from Rusell Brown.
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14."
So when an armed revolt eventually happens against the Socialist state that has itself been using violence against taxpayers to sustain itself you will be approving anon...?
Anon said...
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14.
That's not true Ruth $500,000 Annual Salary Driving Mercedes Mai Chen Laywer. Where did you get that fuck'n idea from?
I'm talking about physical family violence James. Children learn what they live.
And get lost stalker - you're not a woman. I remember you from somewhere else - stop following me around the internet and get a life.
A stalker being stalked!
Oh the irony. Ruth, didn't PC tell you that you weren't welcome here?
Am I to assume that every single teacher who administered that punishment should be tried for child molestation?
I remember being brutally caned at high school for accepting a nudie photo from a friend who had developed it from negatives found in the school dark room. Under torture he confessed about all the kids he had given photos to. I've always wondered if I could sue them for such brutality and why was the school allowing pornography at night class anyway? Still, the caning was an interesting life experience.
IT wasn't so long ago that using the strap or the cane to discipline school children was fine.
Am I to assume that every single teacher who administered that punishment should be tried for child molestation?
Are their 'victims' in denial about their ordeal?
As a child I once saw one of the rougher kids in my class at Mangakino Primary school assualt a priest with his, not inconsiderable, fists during 'Religious Instruction' class.
Please tell me how you are supposed to (1) defend yourself against such an assault without using violence, (2) discipline a kid like that who quite happily uses violence to get his way (he was the class bully by the way, bloodied may a nose in order to obtain lunch money) and doesn't give a rodent's rectum about detention or time out?
I'd like to know, because in my trip through NZ public school system I met up with a number of violent little bastards who ran riot during class and had a detrimental effect on the ability of their class mates to learn.
The best days for their victims were when their tormentors decided to wag class in order to smoke dope or sniff petrol.
Unfortunately, the government's anti-truancy policies landed that scum right back in class very soon after, leaving them free to amuse themselves by bullying.
Now seeing as this government isn't about to remove itself from Education and that they believe that every child deserves an education no matter how disruptive they are in class; I want to know how you of the 'anti-smacking' Brigade intend to discipline recalcitrant children like Charles Ngamana - cop killer and fellow Mangakino Primary School student.
I mean, if you get your way nobody, not even their parents, will be allowed to lay a finger on them as a first or last resort in the quest to curb their violent behaviour towards their fellow students and teachers.
And even if you remove these children and place them in a 'special school' for naughty boys and girls, how do you propose to keep them their without using force, even a hard shove through a cell-door.
The statistics from places like Otara and Mangere suggest that the kids like the ones I've described aren't a miniscule minority.
--
Posted by Robert Winefield to Not PC at 4/13/2007 09:36:10 AM
"The statistics from places like Otara and Mangere suggest that the kids like the ones I've described aren't a miniscule minority."
No. They're not.
--
Posted by PC to Not PC at 4/13/2007 09:54:59 AM
I have to say Peter I am a little disappointed in you.
Using violence against an individual who has not used violence against you I would have thought would be against the very core ideals of libertarianism.
I am sure you do not believe that libertarian principles are reserved for people only above the age of 18.
I note in an earlier post your conclusion that this legislation was of no benefit because “it would not stop child abuse”. Well no one said it would but I’m disappointed because you have decided to oppose this bill on entirely practical grounds and have left your ideology at the door.
The once pure Libertarian has gone conservative on us
--
Posted by TRS to Not PC at 4/13/2007 11:40:02 AM
Oh and here is this mother back in court:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a11.html
This time the boy ran into the path of an oncoming car with his hands tied and blood all over his face...
Perhaps if she wasn't acquitted the first time this incident woulnd’t have taken place.
--
Posted by TRS to Not PC at 4/13/2007 11:55:46 AM
"I note in an earlier post your conclusion that this legislation was of no benefit because “it would not stop child abuse”. Well no one said it would"
Except nearly everyone on the anti smacking side....Bradford, Clark etc etc...
They have claimed precisely that ....are you saying otherwise?
--
Posted by James to Not PC at 4/13/2007 12:11:53 PM
James:
In every society since the begining of time there have been people who have abused children.
This law may help reduce abuse but nothing will ever stop abuse completly.
Look everytime a child dies at the hands of thier care giver in this country we ring our hands and ask why and demand something be done.
This is something. Sure it won't fully protect children. But it may start to change attitudes.
See that's the thing about a violent culture. You can't change it with a simple law, you can just make it go away. The real benfits of this law won't be seen the day after it passes or even a year.
It's real benfit will be a generation of children who are born after this law come into affect who a rasied in a society where the use of force to get what you want is seen as totally unacceptable no matter who you are
--
Posted by TRS to Not PC at 4/13/2007 12:19:49 PM
If the video represents the evidence presented at the horse whip trial, then I would agree with the jury. What she did was reasonable.
If the stuff article represents accurately the evidence of the same family on their road trip...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a11.html
... then if I were on the jury - I would call this assault - as it doesn't meet the definition of reasonable force.
This is a clear case of section 59 working to weed out the assault from the discipline. Just because there is a later case of assault does not mean she was guilty the first time.
--
Posted by Craig Milmine to Not PC at 4/13/2007 01:08:14 PM
Excellent, succinct words from Rusell Brown.
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14.
Being less polite than Brown I will say that to watch libertarians and the right kiss this violent pig of a woman's ass in the service of their own naked ambitions has introduced me to a level of disgust I didn't dream existed.
--
Posted by Anonymous to Not PC at 4/13/2007 01:40:35 PM
"Excellent, succinct words from Rusell Brown.
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14."
So when an armed revolt eventually happens against the Socialist state that has itself been using violence against taxpayers to sustain itself you will be approving anon...?
--
Posted by James to Not PC at 4/13/2007 01:48:12 PM
Anon said...
Violence breeds violence, and chickens come home to roost when your kids hit 14.
That's not true Ruth $500,000 Annual Salary Driving Mercedes Mai Chen Laywer. Where did you get that fuck'n idea from?
--
Posted by PaulaS to Not PC at 4/13/2007 02:42:11 PM
I'm talking about physical family violence James. Children learn what they live.
And get lost stalker - you're not a woman. I remember you from somewhere else - stop following me around the internet and get a life.
--
Posted by 'Anonymous' to Not PC at 4/13/2007 03:23:07 PM
A stalker being stalked!
Oh the irony. Ruth, didn't PC tell you that you weren't welcome here?
--
Posted by Robert Winefield to Not PC at 4/14/2007 05:01:21 AM
Am I to assume that every single teacher who administered that punishment should be tried for child molestation?
I remember being brutally caned at high school for accepting a nudie photo from a friend who had developed it from negatives found in the school dark room. Under torture he confessed about all the kids he had given photos to. I've always wondered if I could sue them for such brutality and why was the school allowing pornography at night class anyway? Still, the caning was an interesting life experience.
--
Posted by angloamerican to Not PC at 4/15/2007 07:06:17 AM
IT wasn't so long ago that using the strap or the cane to discipline school children was fine. Am I to assume that every single teacher who administered that punishment should be tried for child molestation?
Ah yes, the good old days. Let's bring back slavery, and deny women th vote while we're at it, eh?
Post a Comment