Submitted by crinadmin on
In general terms the law: It would not be difficult to identify 20 pieces of legislation that restrict the individual rights of the parent to handle their child. Such laws acknowledge the dependency of the child and their right of protection, health and safety. So we come to the last major discrimination against children. The current legal defence to hit a child, commonly referred to S 59 Crimes Act. ACYA's position is that as stated under the Convention Article 19, and articulated in the UN Committee report of 2003 Concluding Observation 30: "Amend legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in the home". The Current bill before Parliament is due for a Third reading. An amendment will be tabled we believe by Chester Burrows seeking to maintain certain rights to hit children. We oppose such an amendment as it seeks to avoid the key issue: why discriminate against children. We maintain that parents do have the duty to protect and train children in acceptable social habits. We believe it is wrong to justify hitting children. 16 countries have banned corporal punishment, so NZ is not trend setting. Neither is it a nanny state interfering with the rights of the parents. It is merely saying children are human beings with the same right as adults not to be attacked. We can sympathise with the frustrated parent who at the end of the day is short tempered and lose their self control. But that does not justify attacking the child however annoying they may be. We have no sympathy with those who rely solely on perceived cultural heritage or mistaken religious belief to hit their children.