Following on from my rants concerning the tetchy subject of "child beating" and the upcoming "to child beat or not to child beat" people's referendum, some people have taken issue at my use of the word "beat" in preference to the word "smack".
To assist in any debate that I may have innocently provoked, please allow me to clarify the basis of my semantic choice:
"smack" is an anglo saxon word derived from the German 'smakken' or 'schmacken' and means to strike with something flat - like an open hand, or a ping pong paddle for instance - or even a plank of wood, a flat metal bar - or perhaps a cricket bat (but not a softball bat as this is round) as the word smack also means: "to drive with a sharp resounding blow or stroke".
When the "anti smacking law" hand wringers talk about 'smacking', I am presuming that they do not mean "to drive with a sharp resounding blow or stroke" - but, then again, the evidence is that perhaps some of them do... Well, there's always and exception to any rule, but I digress.
Semantically the word "smack" does not accommodate the many methods employed by parents whose children have got the better of them, who have run out of ideas and who thereby feel the overwhelming need to resort to ' physical discipline' - or in other words: "Teaching their children conflict resolution by means of violence.
After 25yrs in child safety advocacy, it is my experience that this "physical discipline" regularly includes the employment of jug cords and other electrical appliance leads, riding crops, bamboo canes, fists, backhanders, various sticks, rods and other similar implements and so on and so forth, sometimes grabbed in a moment of passion and sometimes deliberately selected and then used to beat the child. None of this is semantically or even technically 'smacking'.
Hence the proponents of the furore over the "anti smacking law" are not only seeking to pervert public perception of the law (in reality the The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 ) by the stealth and deception of applying a false title, they are also trying to undermine the integrity of the language by perverting the meaning of the very words we use to communicate.
While, clearly, the word "smack" is routinely misapplied in terms of physical discipline, the word "beat" has a far wider range of meanings that would appear, prima facie, to more truthfully describe actual physical punishment of children as it exists out here in the real world.
For instance - "beat" means:
to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly;
to break, forge, or make by blows;
to produce (an attitude, idea, habit, etc.) by repeated efforts: 'I'll beat some sense into him';
to strike (a person or animal) repeatedly;
to overcome in a contest; to defeat;
to be superior to;
to strike repeated blows; to pound;
a stroke or a blow;
the sound made by one or more such blows;
to achieve victory in a contest;
to escape or avoid (blame or punishment).
The final two are quite telling in the circumstances don't you think? Be all of this as it may, I don't think that any of these semantic distinctions really matter to a 3 or 4 - or 5 or 6 year old who is being flogged with a jug cord or a leather belt (and I use the word "flog" semantically, not emotively).
There is far too much being read into this situation by the people who perceive their parental rights to be evaporating. Contrary to the "anti smacking law' hand wringers, I suggest that the average parent has not been victimised by the above amendment to the Crimes Act and that the opposition to the law is being stirred up by fanatics who are cynically manipulating the argument to salve their own consciences or further their own perversions.
To their credit the police (and God knows the police don't need any more bad publicity) have not been arresting anyone under the auspices of this law except in cases of flagrant abuse! And where someone has fallen afoul of the law, in my opinion, should they be quietly slipped into the open population in Paremoremo where they can really learn the true meaning of "smack" in the vernacular rather than the pedantic, that would not be something that would keep me awake at night.
Let's stop playing with words and start caring for our children instead of for ourselves.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
AS A CULTURE HOW DO WE CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN?
In 1984 I was the R & D supervisor on the Safe Playing Programme - a govt funded research programme based at the University of Waikato. Important resources for better parenting / child safety education etc etc were all there at the Programme ready to deploy nationally and evolve for the care and protection of our children - our future.
25years ago successful pilot programmes had already been run in Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua and Tokoroa - this at a time when our pitiful world ranking in child safety related issues were marginally better in some respects than they are today - a quarter of a century later!
What happened then? Nothing happened; because votes had already been won, because official consciences had been salved by the fact that 'something had been done', the programme funding was slowly withdrawn and the research was subsequently collected up put in boxes, shipped to Wellington and stored in a damp basement under Pearce House. A few years later, when it had all slipped from the public consciousness, it was dragged out again - to be taken to a dump in Lower Hutt and burnt.
This demonstrates our interest as a culture in child safety and good parenting. 25yrs later, with another two decades of a continuously deplorable record behind us, we strut about as if so little is wrong with the wellbeing of our children that we have the time to debate our right, or lack thereof, to beat our children as if this were, in the circumstances, a world shattering issue. It disgusts me as do the individuals behind this 'people's referendum' and, even more so, the corrupt 'public servant' who signed off on this $9million fiasco.
The so called "Anti Smacking Law", the issue at the centre of this ego driven trivia is a red herring. The fact that such a legally innocuous law, proven as such by the fact that it has worked pretty much as intended for the past two years, has provoked such a furore shows just how much trouble our children are really in.
VOTE YES!
25years ago successful pilot programmes had already been run in Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua and Tokoroa - this at a time when our pitiful world ranking in child safety related issues were marginally better in some respects than they are today - a quarter of a century later!
What happened then? Nothing happened; because votes had already been won, because official consciences had been salved by the fact that 'something had been done', the programme funding was slowly withdrawn and the research was subsequently collected up put in boxes, shipped to Wellington and stored in a damp basement under Pearce House. A few years later, when it had all slipped from the public consciousness, it was dragged out again - to be taken to a dump in Lower Hutt and burnt.
This demonstrates our interest as a culture in child safety and good parenting. 25yrs later, with another two decades of a continuously deplorable record behind us, we strut about as if so little is wrong with the wellbeing of our children that we have the time to debate our right, or lack thereof, to beat our children as if this were, in the circumstances, a world shattering issue. It disgusts me as do the individuals behind this 'people's referendum' and, even more so, the corrupt 'public servant' who signed off on this $9million fiasco.
The so called "Anti Smacking Law", the issue at the centre of this ego driven trivia is a red herring. The fact that such a legally innocuous law, proven as such by the fact that it has worked pretty much as intended for the past two years, has provoked such a furore shows just how much trouble our children are really in.
VOTE YES!
VOTE YES
As a culture we devalue our children. Case in point: when a farmer sticks his 4yr old daughter (let me repeat that: four-year-old) in the driver's seat of an ATV that was a death trap even for an adult and lets her ride off while he turns his back to talk on a cellphone, and she is killed as a result - the police decide not to prosecute this idiot for manslaughter on the grounds that the poor man has already suffered enough. While the four year old is the one who has her life crushed from her by a decrepit farm bike that she should have been protected from, we turn the farmer into the victim. Had the child instead been a farm worker, there is no doubt that the farmer would have been prosecuted under OSH regulations.
I have more examples - but my claim is self evident isn't it? As a culture we devalue our children. We have appalling child abuse statistics. We have appalling child sexual abuse statistics. We have worse than appalling child accident statistics - most of the "accidents" are caused by inadequate or incompetent parental supervision in an environment where inadequate parents, supported by the specious research of some academics, keep thrashing about trying to find anything to blame other than their own inadequacy. As a culture we are also often not very adept at taking responsibility for our own behaviour. The statistics to which I refer have not improved since my becoming involved in child safety issues in 1984 and are worse than some so called "3rd world" countries. As a so called "first world" country, as far as the care and protection of our children are concerned, we often struggle to reach the level of being a total embarrassment!
In 2007, by an overwhelming majority of 113 to 8 votes, our parliament went some way towards redeeming our reputation by enacting a law that protected our children from physical assault. And although that law might not have been the most perfect law ever enacted, it was certainly in the top ten given some of the knee jerk single policy utter bollocks that storms through our parliament and into the statues unimpeded by either prudence or intelligent debate.
After this law, imperfect as it may or may not be, has been working pretty much perfectly as intended for the past TWO YEARS, an incompetent and arguably corrupt government official, wearing his partisan position pinned to his chest, at a cost of $9 million to the NZ taxpayer, has signed off on an ambiguous and misleading fiasco that threatens to remove this protection from our children by means of stealth and deception.
The upcoming referendum is a deplorable act the intent of which is to confuse people into supporting the rabid ideology of defective thinkers who are prepared to march, threaten and scream abuse for the right to beat their children. While our $9 million is being squandered on this referendum, are the individuals behind this asking themselves what that money could achieve were it to be spent on child protection instead of an adult ego trip? My question to these individuals is: if YOU support our right as a culture to beat our children, tell me, what EFFECTIVE steps have YOU taken recently to protect our children? Or is this all about adult rights and the children be damned?
When you are exercising your right to vote on this referendum ask yourself this. Do the rights of our children - our future - really matter to us? And if they do - where, in the circumstances, is the evidence of this?
I have more examples - but my claim is self evident isn't it? As a culture we devalue our children. We have appalling child abuse statistics. We have appalling child sexual abuse statistics. We have worse than appalling child accident statistics - most of the "accidents" are caused by inadequate or incompetent parental supervision in an environment where inadequate parents, supported by the specious research of some academics, keep thrashing about trying to find anything to blame other than their own inadequacy. As a culture we are also often not very adept at taking responsibility for our own behaviour. The statistics to which I refer have not improved since my becoming involved in child safety issues in 1984 and are worse than some so called "3rd world" countries. As a so called "first world" country, as far as the care and protection of our children are concerned, we often struggle to reach the level of being a total embarrassment!
In 2007, by an overwhelming majority of 113 to 8 votes, our parliament went some way towards redeeming our reputation by enacting a law that protected our children from physical assault. And although that law might not have been the most perfect law ever enacted, it was certainly in the top ten given some of the knee jerk single policy utter bollocks that storms through our parliament and into the statues unimpeded by either prudence or intelligent debate.
After this law, imperfect as it may or may not be, has been working pretty much perfectly as intended for the past TWO YEARS, an incompetent and arguably corrupt government official, wearing his partisan position pinned to his chest, at a cost of $9 million to the NZ taxpayer, has signed off on an ambiguous and misleading fiasco that threatens to remove this protection from our children by means of stealth and deception.
The upcoming referendum is a deplorable act the intent of which is to confuse people into supporting the rabid ideology of defective thinkers who are prepared to march, threaten and scream abuse for the right to beat their children. While our $9 million is being squandered on this referendum, are the individuals behind this asking themselves what that money could achieve were it to be spent on child protection instead of an adult ego trip? My question to these individuals is: if YOU support our right as a culture to beat our children, tell me, what EFFECTIVE steps have YOU taken recently to protect our children? Or is this all about adult rights and the children be damned?
When you are exercising your right to vote on this referendum ask yourself this. Do the rights of our children - our future - really matter to us? And if they do - where, in the circumstances, is the evidence of this?
Twitter Twatter
I had a twitter account once - but I found out that had too much to say and 140 characters didn't cut the mustard. My head threatened to explode; it was like an assassination plot and every other twitter member was culpable. I worked away tirelessly carving up my innermost thoughts and inspirations and posting the bits one after the other. And the thread was all upside fucking down! I was being driven slowly mad.
Then the Twitter Brain Police suspended my account for suspected "phishing" - well I never! (Snorts with hands on hips). I have never "'Phished" in my life (sounds like something that went on in the gloomy back bar of gay club I used play at when I was drumming for Tom Sharplin - not that I have anything against this sort of thing - whatever it is). After "words" with the fat conductor of Twitter I was informed that they had un-suspended me - which was good because all the blood had been rushing to my head; but when I checked my Twitter interface I was still suspended - locked out of the global GUI!
My face was turning blue, the pressure in my temples pushing the mercury to unbelievable extremes. I could not mind merge with the gestalt! It was a bad dream; the worst nightmare come true: arising from the ephemeral somnolent mind fields where the conscious mind treads at its peril, the dreamtime Phishing Entity, dripping with slime, was engulfing me claustrophobically, isolating me from the all nurturing trans-personal cyber organism - and they didn't care! They didn't care! I wanted to wake up but there was no respite. I couldn't even log in to close my account. It hung there in the ether of cyberspace taunting me with its obtuse arrogance! Waving its insolence in my face like a used tissue.
Finally, after counseling, I have learned to ignore it. Its still there, but I don't care. All thought of it has left my awareness. (left eyelid twitches)...
Then the Twitter Brain Police suspended my account for suspected "phishing" - well I never! (Snorts with hands on hips). I have never "'Phished" in my life (sounds like something that went on in the gloomy back bar of gay club I used play at when I was drumming for Tom Sharplin - not that I have anything against this sort of thing - whatever it is). After "words" with the fat conductor of Twitter I was informed that they had un-suspended me - which was good because all the blood had been rushing to my head; but when I checked my Twitter interface I was still suspended - locked out of the global GUI!
My face was turning blue, the pressure in my temples pushing the mercury to unbelievable extremes. I could not mind merge with the gestalt! It was a bad dream; the worst nightmare come true: arising from the ephemeral somnolent mind fields where the conscious mind treads at its peril, the dreamtime Phishing Entity, dripping with slime, was engulfing me claustrophobically, isolating me from the all nurturing trans-personal cyber organism - and they didn't care! They didn't care! I wanted to wake up but there was no respite. I couldn't even log in to close my account. It hung there in the ether of cyberspace taunting me with its obtuse arrogance! Waving its insolence in my face like a used tissue.
Finally, after counseling, I have learned to ignore it. Its still there, but I don't care. All thought of it has left my awareness. (left eyelid twitches)...
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance...
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal; well meaning but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis (1928). Oh... Oops, too late!
Martial ARTS
Karate and Kung Fu are definitive examples of meditative and character forming martial arts in which devotees who have dedicated their lives to years of intense training of both body and mind can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of cinema...
Pettifoggery
Did you hear that major research laboratories are starting to use lawyers instead of rats for their experiments? They find that the scientists don't get as attached to the lawyers (and there are some things that even rats wont do). Auctually, I just found out that if you cross a lawyer with the godfather you are likely to get an offer you can't understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)