Critic gets a spanking
August 03, 2009 18:28
Last week’s editorial was critical of certain elements of this year’s OUSA Executive, notably President Edwin Darlow. Unsurprisingly, he has chosen to respond in his column this week. Fair enough, but he does not even attempt to answer the criticisms raised; instead, he attacks Critic. I don’t agree at all with what he has to say, but I defend to the death his right to say it, so I encourage you to read his column here. I have no desire to start a mud-slinging match in your magazine, Dear Reader, but as Darlow argues that Critic lives to “undermine” OUSA, I would like to reiterate that the take-home message from last week’s editorial was that OUSA’s staff, and most of its Execcies, are doing a great job, but are hampered by a lack of leadership and communication from the top of the Executive (and by unconstructive responses to this by some other Execcies). Finally, Darlow is soliciting your opinion on Critic, and I encourage you to respond. We here at Critic always seek your feedback, both positive and negative, so drop us a line at critic@critic.co.nz, or just cc. us in on your email to the Prez.
On to the topic that was postponed last week: the smacking referendum. By now you may have already cast your ballot, but for those that haven’t, let’s run through your options: vote yes, vote no, spoil your ballot, or don’t send your ballot in. If you don’t care about the debate at all, the choice is obvious. Anything beyond that, and it gets a little more complicated.
The question explicitly being asked is, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” The issue implicitly being addressed is the repeal of Section 59, which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents charged with abusing their children (for the full text of the substituted section, see last week’s feature). Section 59 outlawed the use of physical force for correcting children, while allowing its use in protecting them from causing danger to themselves or others.
The law stipulates that police have the discretion not to prosecute when force is “inconsequential” and it would not be in the public’s interest. So far, it would seem that this discretion has been used, and while the number of complaints for minor instances of physical discipline has increased, very few have led to prosecutions. Those on the VoteNo side argue that the inconvenience and embarrassment faced by “good parents” who are investigated by police proves that the law isn’t working. A common argument seems to be an appeal to common sense: “I know what constitutes appropriate levels of physical discipline for my kids, so why should there be a law against inappropriate use of force?” Most of us probably know what constitutes assault against an adult, too, but that’s not a valid reason to take an axe to those laws. More importantly, can we argue that the shame of our neighbours seeing the police turn up for a wee chat on our doorstep really outweighs the fact that more cases of actual child abuse are being reported and prosecuted?
However, it is easier to legislate than educate, and the law change did not come with an appropriate public awareness campaign. Kids don’t come with instruction manuals, but some appendices could be provided.
Unfortunately, the way the question is phrased makes voting “yes” rather awkward – like answering the question of whether you have stopped beating your wife. Surely no one should be criminalised for “good parental discipline?” But this is what the question writers have artfully managed to force you to agree to. Here’s where the option to spoil your ballot comes in – to let it be known that you think the question itself is silly. If enough people do this, it sends a strong message on the referendum itself. But not many people who would otherwise lean toward voting “no” will likely take this option, so it could merely increase the apparent strength of the “no” vote.
But the darn guvmint’s gonna ignore the referendum in favour of an evidence-based review of the law anyway, so maybe in the end it’s all academic. And we all know them academics can’t be trusted, right?
