I have been reading Freud's 1919 paper "A Child Is Being Beaten" and reflecting on the absurdly worded referendum we are being subjected to at the moment here in New Zealand.
I sent an email to all the MP''s recently encouraging them to vote "yes" and thought it might be interesting to see some of the conversations that have developed:
This one is from David Garett:
Thank you for your recent email to me about the Citizens' Initiated Referendum on child smacking.
I will be voting NO in the referendum.
Child abuse was already illegal before the anti-smacking law was passed. Abusers were already breaking the law, and they continue to do so - yet as a result of the anti-smacking legislation, good parents who lightly smack their child for the purpose of correction are now technically criminals. I believe the vast majority of New Zealand parents are decent and loving, and as such, do not need the Government butting in and telling them how to raise their children.
Thank you again for your email.
David Garrett MP
ACT New Zealand
And here is my response:
Thank you for your email and your considered response.
I am disappointed by your reply, but interested in what you have to say.
Could you give me some guidance as to at what age hitting someone should become punishable by law? Also what constitutes a light smack as opposed to child abuse?
I agree with you that the vast majority of NZ parents are probably well-intentioned, as are most NZ citizens, however I do not think this would be an argument for dismantling the law.
Thank you for your time.