I would like to take a brief call to make a direct response to Mr Copeland. Of course, as far as I know, there has never been a conviction or a prosecution of someone once lightly smacking a child. That is simply because we have the defence of reasonable force under section 59 of the Crimes Act, which is for the purpose of correction. It is this section this bill seeks to repeal. The problem is that at the moment we have cases where people who severely beat their children escape conviction in court under section 59 of the Crimes Act. The whole point is that this bill is not an anti-smacking bill; it is an anti-beating bill.She was even happy for smacking to continue... well, back then she was.
"We could ... say as part of the commentary that it's not our intention to criminalise parents for putting their children into a room for time-out or for physically removing them from danger or for lightly smacking them - which are all the things that the bill has been accused of doing."Today, her supporters are not quite staying on message...
"Promoters of the referendum on child discipline must be truly desperate if they are willing to make a father who repeatedly pushes over his 7-year-old their new poster-boy for 'a smack as a part of good parental correction'," she said.Ms Morris-Travers said all parents got tired and frustrated but the actions being raised were not good parental correction.No beating here, not even smacking. No, a man was pushed through the courts for pushing his child.
And, in spite of clear statements from Sue Bradford that she thought light smacking was ok, and that her bill was not even designed to make that illegal, her supporters are attacking a man for a mere push.
In this case, any harm done to the child is far, far overshadowed by the trauma inflicted on himself and his family by the court case.
LAW DESIGN - FAIL
MISSION CREEP - FAIL
KEEPING YOUR WORD - FAIL
REASSURING GOOD PARENTS THEY WON'T BE CRIMINALIZED - FAIL
STAY ON MESSAGE - FAIL
PROTECTING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN...