John Roughan (‘Sinister undertones to referendum instigators’ NZ Herald 1 Aug) needs a good dose of correction.
He cannot understand ‘good parental correction’ in the referendum question yet has no problem with ‘good care and parenting’ contained within the current anti-smacking law.
He refuses to acknowledge the mounting evidence of parents being reported and investigated for using a smack in the supermarket, or to correct swearing, insolence, or persistent disobedience. Some parents have even been prosecuted (13 at last count according to police reports) and children temporarily removed by CYF.
He continues the myth that parents who use a smack can only be angry and frustrated - a charge which he never applies to a parent who says ‘get to your room!’ or ‘you’re grounded!’ But then he thinks that correction, given after the event, and used to deter future wrong behaviour, is ineffective.
Roughan tries to link a cold-blooded assault with a smack – a link which parents simply don’t buy. He hysterically labels supporters of the referendum as wanting to flog children.
Grant Illingworth QC says the anti-smacking law is an extremely poor piece of legal drafting calculated to create confusion rather than clarity, and it criminalizes behaviour which should not be classified as a criminal offence.
I will take a QC’s interpretation way before the sinister undertones of Roughan.