The Media's "the right to smack" crusade

The Section 59 debate continues to divide the country into two camps, the progressive, enlightened one and one who isn't comfortable with making a progress, and the media, in the past few days, seems to be siding with the latter. Look at all the pro-smacking propaganda dominating the country's media sphere, all the overemphasis on the family fanatic's "pro-smacking protests", "the public opinion is against the bill", etc! The small protest is even reported all over the world, from London to Los Angeles, as the AP wrote from the pro-violence point of view. The Sydney Morning Herald went further to suggest that Kiwi kids love to be hit, grossly emphasising the tiny number of kids in the marches who was brought there and brainwashed by their parents, as if they represent the New Zealand children.

For the polls, they don't even disclose the exact question and method of the opinion polls which they use as the basis of all the reference to the public opinion (a poll yields significantly different results, depending on wording of questions and methodology), and even more, it is natural when the media bombards the public with the irrational fear and emotive parental rights claims, just like a right-wing propaganda machine does, the majority is against it. The media is creating the public opinion themselves and is reporting it which they themselves created. The media has the power to make a sensible policy look like "PC-gone-mad" or whatever, for example, imagine if the media were against the nuclear free policy, had disseminated the fear of terrorism day and night with horrific and graphic images, and a security alliance with the US was the only way for us to protect ourselves from terrorism, how many people would support the nuclear free policy.

This article indeed introduces both perspectives, but it ends with the argument of the opponents that it "catch(es) everybody" (implying "good, loving and caring" parents), which sounds convincing in the article because it is not rebutted. And what is this nonsense reader's opinion page in the Herald, most of them angry rants from regressive right-wingers? Titles of article like "Smack debate fails to sway MPs" or more blatantly, "Public opinions say 'no', but Clark and Cullen say 'yes'"? I didn't know that the Herald had become a propaganda newsletter of the Nationals or the Maxim Institute. Where are the opinions of children's organisations who tirelessly work for the children's welfare, know about the children's issues better than anyone else, and support the bill?

History heads for the social progress, and this is inevitable. There are always people who can't accept it, so some of these backward conservatives in the 19th century opposed Kate Sheppard, inciting fear that voting and political discussions would divide and destroy peaceful families. We think, "what a silly and inane argument", more than a century later. The people will look back pro-violence-against-kids arguments in future in the same way as we see the anti-suffragists now. This futile effort to cling to the "rights to use violence against others because they are young", the remnant of patriarchy, is doomed to fail. Sometimes our MPs know better than the media, and parliamentary democracy exists to protect the country from the hysteric public opinion created by the media. Well done the Greens, Labour, the Maori Party, Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, you are looking forward not backward. It is great to know that we live in a country where the decent and rational Parliament, not some corporate-owned crazed media, is in charge of our children's rights.

Sue Bradford; the conscience of New Zealand

"I wanted to know when I died that I'd done all I could do to help all people to have a full life, not just those born lucky, rich, strong or beautiful." - Sue Bradford

We read her name every day in newspapers. We hear her name every evening in TV News. She is probably the most fervently loved and intensely hated person in New Zealand at the moment. Her name is Sue Bradford.

Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, so-called "anti-smacking bill", has drawn an incredible amount of attention from the media and the public. The name that media gave the Bradford bill; "anti-smacking bill"; is not necessarily wrong, because the bill makes "smacking" illegal. But it is misleading at the same time, because it gives an impression that the Bill is about inserting a new clause, which explicitly bans smacking, in the Crimes Act. Considering the amount of media report on this bill, and that the media primarily refers to her bill as 'anti-smacking bill', the media creates a false impression that the Bradford bill is aiming to specifically criminalise 'caring parents' who occasionally smack their children (Their over-reporting of right-wing pressure group's point also contributes to make this impression). The fact that the Bradford bill allows parents to use reasonable force to protect children from harm or injury under emergency circumstances, which is a crucial part of her bill, is rarely reported.

This illusion of "loving-ordinary-parents-going-to-jail" is just a tactic by pro-violence groups to control people by fear. I mean, not every "illegal" act is dealt with police and prisons. Is speeding legal? No. Do you fear going to prison every time you over-speed? Probably not. Pressure groups, unable to criticise the notion that violence against children is morally bad, shrewdly change the argument from the action (smacking) to the people (loving parents). They may be loving and caring parents, but the act of smacking is neither loving nor caring.

There is really nothing complicated in this issue. Violence is violence, regardless of the age of people against whom violence is targeted. Violence is undesirable and should be avoided. Especially violence against children is cruel because children often can't speak up against the abuse of human rights because of the imbalance of power. Historically speaking, the circumstances under which violence is accepted has been continuously limited as a civilisation has progressed. In the ancient times a war was not considered as moral evil, and now war is outlawed (at least in theory). Geneva Convention didn't exist till sixty years ago. There were times that violence against certain people; slaves, people of different colour or ethnicity, women; were tolerated. This is a part of the gradual progress towards human rights and non-violence we have been making, slowly but steadily, for decades or centuries.

Some opponents of the bill argue for 'parent's rights', as if children were properties of their parents. This nonsense 'parent's right to hit children' is not a legitimate right, just like 'husband's right to hit his wife' or 'a right to kill' doesn't exist. Children are not properties of parents, just like wives are not properties of husbands, and employees are not properties of employers.


Read an amazing story of her life that has been dedicated to the causes to make the world better. And Paul Holmes's interview of Sue Bradford is brilliant and fair; no matter what Holmes said before in regards to the Greens, he's done a superb job as a journalist.

Personally, I met her in the Green Party Conference. Well, I didn't really 'meet' her; I just talked with her for a few seconds. She shook my hand and smiled; 'welcome to the Greens'. Feeling at a loss what to say, I spoke to her; 'it is my great honour to meet you'. She is probably the least person to expect such a formal reply; But I really felt like I am exceptionally honoured to meet her. 'Her face is beautiful. It shows decency, openness and intelligence', Holmes writes. Besides, she has a charisma, vigour and genuine passion of an activist that only few people have.

She represents fearless activism. She is making the lasting, substantial change in the society; establishing the ethical standard that violence, no matter against whom, is not tolerated. Long live Sue Bradford. The great statesperson of our era. The Conscience of New Zealand.

The real problem; single parent families and stepfamilies, or stigmatisation of them?

UNICEF published a comprehensive report on children's welfare in developed countries last week. It was widely reported as it contained an explicit ranking of 21 countries that arouses competitive spirit among nations. For some countries who gloriously topped the ranking, it is time to celebrate; congratulations the Netherlands and Sweden. But for countries that are lagging behind, it is time for some homework, discussions and blame-game. The UK narrowly beat the US for the worst place this year; therefore, not surprisingly, the British media is providing a great amount of stories of the plight of British kids and how to improve children's well-being.

However, the Daily Telegraph's article reporting the 'scathing' UNICEF report exploited this opportunity by stigmatising certain families as the source of the problem. I don't know if the report was 'scathing' to the UK, it just complied the set statistics and Britain happened to come last; there is always a country that comes last (Thatcherites might not notice, but competition always creates losers). But the real problem with the article is the second sentence of it; "The nation's high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking", the Telegraph claims, as if it were the main reason of the country's place in the ranking.

To single them out as a problem is a blatant disregard for their rights and dignity. But is it even true? Even if it were true, is it the focus they should devote half the article on?

I should point out that a part of the responsibility rests with UNICEF that included the 'percentage of children living in single parent families/stepfamilies' as the negative factor. In the page 23 of the report, it notes a legitimate concern that it 'may seem' 'unfair and insensitive'. (Well, it doesn't only seem, it IS.) Then it goes on to claim that 'at the statistical level' 'there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being'; obviously, correlation doesn't imply causation! It provides no evidence that proves the causation. It included the single-parents/stepfamilies data only because of that weak allegation of correlation. (It admits that the correlation was mainly researched in the UK and the US, not in other 20 or more OECD countries). Furthermore, even if they had shown the causation, there are already separate categories for problems that they claim are related to single parents/stepfamilies, such as 'a greater risk of dropping out of school', or 'poor health'. It doesn't make sense to include factors that are correlated to negative factors, not only negative factors themselves, unless they don't consider single parents/stepfamilies in themselves as evil.

Despite its so many grave flaws, the Telegraph chose to highlight the weak 'statistical evidence' part in the beginning of the article, instead of so many other valid points in the UNICEF report. And though Britain's relatively high percentage of single parents/stepfamilies indeed has 'contributed' to its bottom ranking as they are listed as criteria, its impact is minimal; even if Britain had none of single parents/stepfamilies in the country whatsoever, Britain would still be the second-worst in the ranking after the US.

It then goes on to claim that 'The nation has far more single-parent families than any other EU nation'. According to the UNICEF, it is simply untrue. Latvia has 18.6% and 17.7% of Estonian kids live with a single parent. The Iron Curtain no longer exists; the Baltic states are also a part of Europe! And indeed the UK had the highest percentage of single-parent families in the EU countries that are included in the ranking, it was far from 'far more'; the UK has 16.9%, while Sweden has 16.8%! How can a 0.1% difference (the smallest difference possible in the data) be described 'far more'? Then, according to the Telegraph, what is narrow margin? Denmark and Norway has 16.5% and 16.2% respectively; intriguingly and ironically, Sweden and Denmark, the second and third highest in the percentage of single-parent families, came second and third best in the overall ranking!!! If you look outside the Europe, the US has 20.8% of kids living with single parent families, making it nearly 4% higher than the UK figure.

Instead of attaching stigma to single parents and stepfamilies, it is time to learn from the countries in which children are well and happy (not only for the UK, but for New Zealand, and other countries that didn't do well too). The Independent articles reporting the successful examples of the Netherlands and Sweden illustrate that they didn't come to the top of the ranking by blame-game and alienation. In the Netherlands 'from a tender age, their opinions are valued, their wishes respected', and Sweden is the first country in the world to ban violence against children, called corporal punishment, in 1979. 5 out of top 7 countries ban corporal punishment, including all top 4. Only 2 out of the bottom 7 do. Here I'm only showing statistical correlation, not causation; but it is still worth examining, as corporal punishment is in itself evil while single parent families/stepfamilies are not.