Christchurch Women's Refuge blog - 'Anti Smacking' - A Misnomer? Maybe not...

The oft touted ‘anti-smacking’ law has always seemed to me to be a misnomer, and a crafty one at that. It’s so easy to get up in arms about parents rights to discipline their children and use the age old argument that smacking does not necessarily equate to violence. To smack your child is not to punch, clout or strike your child is it? However, when the “ear-flicking” but in reality “face-punching” father Jimmy Mason was finally found guilty of assaulting his child, it gave me cause to reflect. Perhaps we can re-think the meaning of ‘anti-smacking’. For all the hyperbole about the Mason case being a “test of the anti-smacking law” I think that perhaps it could be a test on our perceptions of the meaning of the law.

Firstly, if we want to pontificate we could re-assert that the law was created as a child discipline law that gives children the legal right to protection against assault. The public outcry and blogging hysteria against Jimmy Mason being charged for “flicking his child’s ear” has been momentous. And I would maintain that the response was mainly fuelled by misconceptions regarding the new law and its application. With the up-coming Section 59 referendum – whereby we can choose ‘Yes’ we will uphold the rights of the child or ‘No’ we don’t think the laws should protect children equally as it does adults – this outcry is concerning. I think it also important to point out that under the old law Mason would also have been charged. What the new law rejects is the legality of the argument that it is ok to use ‘reasonable force’ against a child that one could not legally use against any other member of society. At least, that’s my understanding of it.

But let’s get back to the naming of the law as ‘anti-smacking’ and our perceptions of what that means. Let us for instance tease out some of the meanings of ‘anti’ and ‘smacking’. ‘Anti’ with no surprise means: against, in opposition to, opposed to, hostile, antagonistic, resistant and not in favour of. ‘Smacking’ however holds a few revelations. It also means to: hit, strike, clout, slap, punch, and cuff. So, we could say that the ‘anti-smacking’ law is a ‘resistant to striking’ law, an ‘opposed to hitting’ law, and also an ‘in opposition to punching’ law. Perhaps it’s not such a misnomer after all. Words have the power to persuade, and the term ‘anti-smacking’ has been used to persuade parents that this law contravenes their parental rights. It conjures up fear that the ‘anti-smacking brigade’ will be down on them should they dare put a foot (or hand) wrong. But what good parent would hesitate to vote for an ‘anti-punching, -striking, -clouting’ law. This law gives parents helpful restraints and alternative ways of exercising authority and acceptable disciplinary processes. Let’s not smack or strike our children. Let us vote with a resounding YES to the referendum.

And as an aside, even if Jimmy Mason had restrained himself to an ear-flick and not a face-punch, it was also acknowledged that he yelled at his children using abusive language.  At Women’s Refuge incorporated in our definitions of family violence is verbal abuse, which includes yelling, name-calling, blaming and shaming. I would like to think that even if the tweak hadn’t turned into a punch that our society would consider Mason’s behaviour as inappropriate and unacceptable. Our new law is precisely there to differentiate between good parenting behaviour and Mason’s abusive behaviour as a parent. That the law and the courts deemed Mason guilty of assault is one step closer towards a violence free New Zealand.

Click here to listen to some comments from NZ Celebs