Blog-nzconservative

Feb 4, 2008

—

Interesting comments from nzconservative

Cindy Kiro on Smacking being Violence creating Criminals

Cindy Kiro has an article in today’s Dominion Post that draws a rather long bow. She asserts that violence causes violence and implies that smacking is violence, therefore smacking creates violent individuals of the type that she has talked to in prison.

What I find even more disturbing than her tightly held belief that smacking is violence, is the statement that seems to come out of nowhere like a tourette’s expletive – “Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.”

What the!!!

Who is calling for the right to “punch a child in the head”???

Is Cindy on some kind of memory lane trip at this point where she remembers something horrible from her own childhood?

By putting that statement in her article, Cindy Kiro is directly implying that all of us who believe we need to be able to physically discipline our children (should it become necessary) and not be criminalised are potentially out of control child murderers that need to be dobbed in by our friends and neighbours.

Just what type of childhood did Cindy Kiro have?

Here is her article, if you can stomach reading it:

Read it here along with comments:

http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/02/cindy-kiro-on-smacking-being-violence.html

Comments

One response to “Blog-nzconservative”

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, lawyer

February 11, 2008

For the Intelligentia who are unable to understand the difference between disciplinary smacking and child abuse, I present the following analysis that was made by a radio debater, Gösta Öhman, during the debate on smacking that I started in April 1992. Birgitta, to whom he addressed his analysis is Birgitta Dahl, former minister in Swedish social-democratic governments and former speaker of the House of Parliament. She had chosen to partake in the debate to put an end to it – out of the power of her position. Her intervention, however, inflamed the debate.

Gösta Öhman’s theses and anti-theses were:
“Oh, yes, dear Birgitta, of course there is a difference between spanking and ill-treatment! Here are seven theses and antitheses that maybe can help you along the way:
Spanking is something constructive, Ill-treatment is something destructive;
Spanking is instructive, ill-treatment is destructive;
Spanking is intervention, ill-treatment is aggression;
Spanking is reprimand, ill-treatment is ruin;
Spanking is therefore fruitful, ill-treatment is completely dreadful;
Spanking is desirable, ill-treatment is hateful;
Spanking is used by parents with understanding, good judgement and responsibility;
Ill-treatment is performed by idiots who should be taken into custody.”

********

Gösta Öhmans teser och antiteser
Klarspråk i P1 april 1992

“Ja kära Birgitta, visst kan man skilja mellan aga och misshandel!
Här ska du få sju teser och antiteser som kanske kan hjälpa Dig på traven:

Aga är något konstruktivt, misshandel är något destruktivt;
Aga är instruktiv, misshandel är destruktiv;
Aga är ingrepp, misshandel är övergrepp;
Aga är tillrättaläggande, misshandel är ödeläggande;
Aga är därför fruktbar, misshandel är helt fruktansvärt;
Aga är åtråvärd, misshandel är avskyvärd;
Aga tillämpas av föräldrar med förstånd, omdöme och ansvar;
Misshandel utövas av dårar som själva borde tas i förvar.”
Gösta Öhman

Blog-nzconservative

Interesting comments from nzconservative

Comments

One response to “Blog-nzconservative”

Leave a Reply