United Future

Denise

I grew up in the 1960s without having to lock doors. We were taught as kids to respect our neighbours and ended up having some as lifetime friends (mother's side of friends).

There would need to be two things to help Kiwis understand that fear is not worth an effort. One, to promote Media Ethics on Journalists. Two, to promote neighbourhood Support Groups- not neighbourhood watch groups. Fortified houses and neighbourhoods leads to alienation and allegations based on false perception of a person or persons. With these two in mind, we could add a third but it might be a bit late: better Urban Design. Some models of Urban Design from the US and UK are quite awesome in establishing better neighbourhoods- more supportive neighbourhoods.

I like your ideas Quentin! Tis a pity that fear is such a motivating force in the media - its the potent short-term play that can smash the media box office.

As for the neighbourhood support groups - great! My family and i belong to one in our street but i would like to see it expand well beyond the reporting of what crime what took place when scenario. In fact, sometimes i think the current role it has actually heightens our fear for our street.

When we feel connected to others is when we can feel more certainty and face the unpredictability of the future. Perhaps the answers really are under our noses (or at least over the garden fence) with our neighbours.

My biggest concern is that both the anti-smacking lobby & the smacking lobby are all "completely narcissistic" - which is one hell of a terrible indictment on the selfishness of both sides who say they 'want' to protect or give children the best start in life. My point is that NO ONE argued or mentioned that even under the new law children can still be disciplined by a respectful smack if their behaviour "at the time is either disruptive or offensive". I can give you the names of screeds of grandparents who'd love to know that is the truth! Having told 1 set they totally relaxed! They now know that they can be within the law if the grandchild needs a little smack at the time they are either disruptive or offensive! Grandparents never 'lay in to kids' - well that's my experience; but they do like to give little Johnny a lolly or a dollar sometimes & also a light smack if he ain't listening too good! It's what good grandparents do!!

This message needs to be 'shouted from the roof tops' so that the binding legislation does not leave everyone ignorant of what they "can or cannot do" now. It is preposterous that neither side in the lobby groups have mentioned these 2 activities that are allowable under the new law - such was their utter selfishness or defence in regard to the bill that they forgot to explain what it in fact means. That selfishness shown by both sides leads one to wonder if both sides have some form of psychopathic or Machiavellian streak they can't themselves constrain. That basically means they are quite 'sick' individuals wanting their own way at the expense of others and in showing no or little empathy or compassion towards our society as they do that.

It also means, from where I sit that the legislators made the hard call, beyond the quest of general public opinion opposing the bill to satisfy those in the 'know' who are so concerned more so about 'rampant domestic violence' (often perpetuated by women - well at least as often or more so than by men!) rather than 'child smacking'. This is just ONE call to our society to not throw the baby out with the bath water in regard to child smacking - as 1 form of rearing kids. It point us/ them in a right direction & is a CLARION CALL to all kiwis to think again "before" raising any form of physical threat or actual physical punishment or actual physical hit on anyone, child or adult, male or female..unless its in self defence or the defence of another in need. Chivalry isn't completely dead.. but you'd have to understand those that think it is and also wonder about both sides who condemned or hastened this bill!