Ball now in Key's court re anti-smacking law

They thought we'd forget about it. They thought it was over. They claimed it was confusing. They thought we'd be silenced. They were wrong. Over the past 3 weeks New Zealanders were asked if a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. After the nationwide vote, the answer is a clear and resounding NO. The tribe has spoken. Anti-smacking law, it's time for you to go. One question has been unequivocally answered but another question remains: What happens next? John Key now has a clear choice to make. He can either give in to the anti-choice anti-smackers and retain an undemocratic, stupid, ambiguous and unworkable law that criminalises good parenting but does nothing to real child abuse. Or he can be the outcast to Sue Bradford and her ilk. He can make the choice parents aren't allowed to make: the right choice. The right choice is to change this stupid anti-choice law and clearly define reasonable force so that good ordinary parents don't have to feel like criminals and the real causes of child abuse can be addressed.

Unfortunately, things don't look so promising. John Key continues to be pretty much as dismissive of democracy now as before the referendum. He tries to assure us by claiming that proposals short of changing the law are being considered by cabinet that would supposedly put parents at ease. These are empty promises from an empty suit because, as long as the current law remains, parents who smack their children as part of good parental correction will be criminals regardless of whether or not they actually get prosecuted. The so-called compromise between John Key and Helen Clark (Subsection 4) gives police the discretion not to prosecute when the offence is too inconsequential. But who defines what's inconsequential? If I stole a couple of grapes, that would be considered inconsequential by most people but I would still technically be breaking the law. Furthermore, discretion only applies to the police not others like CYFS. They can take away any kids they like just for a light smack. The substituted Section 59 is too confusing and leaves good parents in fear of whether or not they would be criminals. It allows reasonable force for prevention but not correction. But the subsection against correction prevails over the subsection allowing reasonable force for prevention. This makes parents who smack unsure of whether it is for prevention or correction. And, since the prohibition against correction prevails, this pretty much makes any form of reasonable force illegal. If Parliament won't make the law clear and the police don't have clear guidelines as to how to apply the law then how are parents supposed to know whether or not they're actually following the law?

Many people think that the anti-smacking referendum is just about smacking. It's not. It's about leaving good parents alone and giving them the right to choose the best way to parent under the circumstances. It's about telling the Nanny State to stay out of family lives. Anti-smackers claim the allowance for reasonable force under the old Section 59 let child abusers get away. If that's the case (and that's debatable) then reasonable force should be defined so parents know exactly where they stand under the law. The anti-smacking law did not stop the Kahui twins and countless other children from being murdered. Instead it continues to persecute countless good parents. Merely tinkering with the application of the law does not change the law itself. National won the election by only 45% and 88% voted NO in the referendum. This, along with a majority with ACT, provides a clear mandate to change this stupid law so that good parents have choice in parenting. Anything less is unacceptable.