SEMANTICS:- SMACKING vs BEATING

Following on from his open letter to the MPs on the subject of corporal punishment and the so called "anti-smacking" Bill, some people have taken issue at Jon’s use of the word "beat" in preference to the word "smack".

 

"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. 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 bill hand wringers talk about 'smacking', we presume that they do not mean "to drive with a sharp resounding blow or stroke" - but perhaps some of them do...

Semantically the word "smack" does not accommodate the many methods employed by parents who have run out of ideas and who physically discipline children (in other words: "Teach their children conflict resolution by means of violence). Implements used in such “discipline” include jug cords and other electrical appliance leads, riding crops, bamboo canes, fists, backhanders, various sticks, rods and other similar objects grabbed in a moment of passion and used to beat the child. None of this is semantically or even technically 'smacking'.

The word "beat" however has a far wider range of meanings that would appear, prima facie, to more truthfully describe actual physical punishment of children as it exists in the real world. For instance—”BEAT”:-
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; defeat.
to be superior to
to strike repeated blows; pound.
a stroke or 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 amusing in the circumstances don't you think?

However I don't think that these distinctions really matter to a 3 or 4year old who is being flogged with a jug cord or a leather belt (and we use the word "flog" semantically, not emotively). There is far too much being read into the “smacking / anti smacking” argument by the people who perceive their parental rights to be evaporating. We suggest that the average parent is not  being victimised by being denied the “right” to beat their children. We suggest that most of the opposition stirred up against “The Bill”  was stirred up by fanatics and by politicians who are cynically manipulating the argument either to win votes or to obfuscate more sinister legislation like for instance the: "Therapeutic Products & Medicines Bill". The police (God knows the police don't need any more bad publicity) should not be arresting parents unless there are cases of flagrant abuse! Then, in our opinion, the perpetrators should 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.

Let's stop playing with words and start caring for our children instead of for ourselves.

Dear Shane, Chris, Paula etc etc etc
As a culture we devalue our children. Case in point: when a farmer sticks a 4yr old on an ATV that was a death trap even for an adult and lets her ride off while he turns his back and makes a cellphone call, and she is killed as a result - he is not prosecuted (because he has already suffered enough). While the child is dead, we turn the farmer into the victim and he gets off scot free. I have more examples - but my claim is self evident isnt it?

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. These stats have not improved since 1984 and are worse than some so called 3rd world countries. As a so called 'first world country', in the care and protection of our children we are a total embarrassment!

And, if this is not enough, we have 1000s of people amongst us who are prepared to march, threaten and scream abuse for the right to beat their children. While we tear our hair and rend our garments over our "right to beat our children" what effective steps, as a culture, have we taken to protect our children?

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? Worse still, is it all about votes? Do the rights of our children - our future - matter to us? And if they do - where is the evidence of this?
Regards,
Jon Smyth
Founder: NZ Safe Playing Trust '84
Trustee: NZ Child Safety Foundation '92 - '06
Webmaster: www.childsafenz.org '97 -

More from Jon after the following article on semantics….

JON INDULGES IN ANOTHER

SMACKING RANT…

The argument against Sue Bradford’s “BILL” (erroneously called “The Anti Smacking Bill”, is a devaluation of children - personally I have no particular investment in Sue Bradford or her politics but here she is addressing a demonstrable inequity. Its illegal to bash an adult - it's not illegal to bash your child - hence the child is devalued and treated like a chattel instead of a human being - QED. 60 years ago the same inequity devalued women - it was against the law to bash a man - however it was not immediately against the law to bash your wife. women were devalued. We addressed this inequity and we got over it.

I have no sympathy at all for the hand wringers who marched against the Bill and yawped about the horror they said it would create. Its always the same for these kind of people: Apparently the world was going to end if the homosexual law reform bill was made law - the world didn’t end. Apparently the world was going to end if the civil union bill was made law - and the world didn’t end. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Bashing kids should be considered assault - child / adult - its just a human being bashed; there is no justification. Worse still, to condone bashing a kid in law is to officially condone teaching children conflict resolution thru violence. This is a simply abhorrent situation which will return to bite us all on the arse when the kids taught thus dubious valuve grow into adulthood . The proposition that that he courts would  swamped with prosecuted parents if a child beating ban was put into effect is just absurd propaganda - in fact when a similar law was passed in Britain I think it took three years for the first case to appear in court.

By passing this thing into law we will not stop child bashing - it would be niave to think this - however the threat of prosecution would keep the issue of child bashing in the public eye - we would be waiting for the first case - and I guarantee that the police would wait until they had an appropriate one to proceed with - god knows they don't need any more bad publicity! As a culture we need to start valuing our children instead of bashing and killing them as we have done for decades - it might take another generation or two for this radical concept to take hold if we start right now - otherwise it will be 2084 and those stats I mentioned in my email to the MPs will still be the same - I will put money on that.

I have four daughters and I freely admit that I lost my rag once or twice and a couple of them got a “smack” - but I don't feel the need for the law to protect me (I'm a grown up) - instead I feel the need for the law to protect my kids and my grandkids - they are my future. As I write this the law does not protect my children - it stands by blindfolded until they are bashed to death and then it prosecutes the murderers - not a brilliant deal for the dead kids.

J Smyth

May 2007

http://www.childsafenz.org/home/smacking

ChildsafeNZ.org came about when a website for the What Will Happen If I Tell? Project needed an on-line presence and EMFANZ stepped up as a sponsor.  ChildsafeNZ.org has since expanded into an advocacy and resource for the health and welfare of all children in Aotearoa New Zealand and welcomes links and information that supports this mission.

The webmaster can be contacted at info@childsafenz.org.

SMACKING ~ A MESSAGE

To those of our elected representatives that supported our right to beat our children. SMACKING vs BEATING (see below)….

Dame Barbara Goodman wrote:

I am irate that ill informed people, stoked by most of the talk back hosts, continue to call it the 'anti smacking' Bill when, I am sure, they know that
it is not that at all but taking away the justification of using
unacceptable force and implements.

Dame Barbara is one of the original Trustees of the New Zealand Child Safety Foundation and, in this role, has been involved in Child Safety Advocacy since the mid 1980s.

AN ADVOCACY FOR CHILD SAFETY AND WELFARE IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

The website is maintained and hosted free by the Electronic Media Foundation Aotearoa New Zealand Charitable Trust

We run on

UBUNTU LINUX