Today, Sue Bradford's "Anti Smacking Bill" goes for its second reading. Obviously im all for the bill, and it does look like it will now pass to the Committee of the Whole (which is the next stage of debate in the house), before it is read a third time (and becomes law). This is a Conscience issues for most parties, although Labour and the Greens are voting as parties. The expected Ayes are; Labour 49, Greens 6, National 6, Maori 4, NZ First 3, Progressive 1, United Future 1, and the expected Noes are; National 42, ACT 2, NZ First 4, United Future 2, Independent 1, meaning a 70-51 split in favour.
You will note that six National MPs are supporting the bill to the next stage. They have said they will attempt to water it down in committee - which could in effect kill the bill, by making it unacceptable to Labour and the Greens.
On a principle level I think it is abhorent that the law deems it ok for a parent to physically assault their child, but not fellow adults - or anyone else for that matter! Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which this bill seeks to repeal, was recently used by a South Island Woman to defend her use of a metal bar, jug cord, and swinging a clothes iron by the chord on her son, this is indefensible in my opinion - but legally she was protected. This bill removes that legal protection should a case be brought to court - of course just like assault between adults, not every case will be prosecuted nor reported.
This is about the state saying that actually, we don't condone violence, at all. Why shouldnt children have the same protection and human rights as any other individual?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hitting a child shows a complete lack of originality when punishing a child. One of the things I hate most is seeing a parent hit their child while telling them off saying, "dont hit your brother!" - ummm, yeah, cause that makes sense!
Post a Comment