Smacking Referendum – Online Poll!
I recently received my voting paper for the citizen’s referendum. The question posed in the referendum annoyed me and has moved me to write this blog post. The referendum is in result to an amendment to the law in 2007 that has been dubbed the ‘Anti-Smacking Law’. The law was put into place to try to minimize child abuse by removing the defense of ‘reasonable force’ from abusive parents. Unfortunately, I don’t think many people are actually informed about the Act that was passed, and the referendum question is worded to bias people in their voting. The referendum question is: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?”
My first complaint is with the unnecessary adjective ‘good’; how can ‘good’ parenting be wrong? To see the effect of this word, just try rereading the question by placing a negative adjective in this place such as ‘abusive’.
My second complaint is with the word ‘smack’ in the question. My issue is that this word doesn’t actually appear in the Act at all. In this question it helps conjure up a loving gentle smack on the bottom. The Act was passed to prevent physical assaults on children that would be prosecutable if the child was an adult. So try rereading the question by replacing the word ‘smack’ with ‘physical assault on a child’. Once again it is just a different choice of words, neither of which are in the Act, but they definitely change the question.
So here is my online poll with just those two words modified:
Loading ...So before voting in the referendum I suggest that you do some further reading to become fully informed. First take a look at the following site: YesVote, and note the organisations that are supporting a Yes vote. I can recommend the following article as a really informative viewpoint. And I also suggest that you read the actual legislation: Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Please vote Yes in the upcoming poll, and please inform your friends.
5 Comments
Other links to this post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Shane Legg, August 3, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Yeah, wording like that would piss me off too… independent of what the issue was or whether or not I supported it.
[Reply]
Kelvin Hartnall Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Yes, I think it is good to separate the wording problem from the underlying issue. This particular campaign goes to show how powerful choice of language can be. I’ve noticed over the last few years how powerful slogans or particular words can be in framing the discussion of an issue, and this is a good example.
[Reply]
By Greg Day, August 4, 2009 @ 2:00 am
But isnt your example simply doing what the referendum organisers have done in reverse?
Both are sentiment laden, perhaps the ideal question is something like:
should physical punishment as part of parental correction be a criminal offence?
a) in all cases
b) in some cases
c) in no cases
d) its not the role of government to decide.
Of course, in this case, everyone will either vote b or d.
[Reply]
Kelvin Hartnall Reply:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Yes, you are completely correct, I chose my question to reverse the bias to emphasize how the choice of language can significantly alter the question and hence also the outcome of a referendum. I was purposely provocative in my choice of language.
But I would argue that my poll question is less sentiment laden and a better framing of the issue than the referendum question. When the amendment to Section 59 was made, the intention was to ensure that it was still legal to give a child a light admonitory smack, but at the same time stop parents who come home from a bad day at work and bash up their children from escaping prosecution. They purposively drafted the Act so it wouldn’t be subjective and I believe the controversy has stemmed from the wording of the Act. The purpose of the amendment was in response to a number of legal cases where abusive parents escaped penalty. So even though I was being purposively provocative and emphasizing language choice, I don’t think that my question is actually as sentiment laden or as biased as the referendum question.
If I was to answer your question I would answer (b). I believe that parents sometimes need to use physical force, but at the same time I don’t believe that we should make it a parent’s right to be able to bash their kids if they have a bad day at work.
[Reply]
By Share Investor, August 6, 2009 @ 4:28 am
I suggest you do some more reading about the effects this awful law has had on parents and their children. One only has to look at what removing corporal punishment from schools has done to discipline and attitudes. The law needs to be repealed and parents given their rights to parent back.
I voted NO in the referendum. The referendum question is unambiguous and neutral.
[Reply]