Skip to main content

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:
Keeping our children safe
By CINDY KIRO

It's not okay to hit our children, ever.

I have never met a person in prison or a youth justice residence for violent offences who received too much love and too little physical punishment. The opposite is true. Violence taught them to be violent.

Because of what I see, and all the information showing bad behaviour by adults leading to bad behaviour by children, I supported the Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline, known as the Repeal of Section 59, or the anti-smacking law.

My objective is to see the best for all children and young people in New Zealand, including ensuring their safety. They deserve the chance to grow up free from violence.

Much of what is reported about smacking cases where police talk to parents for disciplining their children is one- sided. Some of what is said is politically motivated with no consideration for children and young people. The child's side of the story is seldom heard or listened to by this very vocal minority. Some of them don't even believe children have rights.

In reality, these cases often end up in court, this wasn't the first time the parent disciplined their child with the use of violence and, in fact, they face charges of criminal assault. These are the same charges they would have faced before the law change.

One of the most important things that has happened since the law change is we have seen communities say no to violence against children. Far from dobbing in apparently good parents, they have decided to keep the children and young people in their community safe.

I continue to urge people to speak out where they see unacceptable behaviour; this is the last line of defence for some children. Babies and young children can't and don't fight back.

WHEN I talk to children they tell me they think physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. They think it is about adult issues, and children are used to bearing the brunt of frustrations that may have nothing to do with them. They believe that adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back.

It is time for old dogs to learn new tricks. Adults have to take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children. Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.

Wanting an excuse in law for assault against a child is a very tangible way in which New Zealand continues to say violence towards children is okay.

Physical punishment is a breach of children's rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).

New Zealand has signed this international human rights treaty that brings together a universal set of standards for children. UNCROC recognises children as active participants in their own lives and places obligations on adults to respect and provide for the best interests and welfare of children in their care.

One of the most significant achievements of UNCROC is that it challenges adult perceptions of children as the property of their parents. This is a point that some parents and proponents of religious or political ideology cannot accept.

New Zealand has a poor track record when it comes to protecting our children from violence with a reported child maltreatment mortality rate higher than most countries within the developed world.

The motives for physical punishment may be reasonable to the person administering it as they believe they are teaching the child a lesson.

However, physical punishment is a poor teaching method. At best it may result in immediate compliance. In the longer term, the evidence shows that the use of physical punishment increases the likelihood of disruptive and aggressive behaviour in children.

It teaches children that the use of violence is an acceptable way to solve problems or to resolve personal differences of opinion. And so the cycle continues.

If anyone requires information, guidance and advice on why it is not okay to hit our children I urge them to read the literature my office has available or to talk to us.

* Dr Cindy Kiro is the Children's Commissioner (acc.org.nz).

* Linley Boniface is on holiday.


Related Link: Keeping our children safe

Comments

  1. Dr Cindy Kiro is the Children's Commissioner (acc.org.nz).

    acc indeed..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kiro makes remarkable leaps of logic! She assumes the children she spoke to were correct in their belief that

    "adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back."

    Consequently, Kiro urges adults to "take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children."

    However, the perception of children is frequently wrong, which is why adults sometimes need to send them a clear message that the child's behaviour is unacceptable.

    By the way, Kiro offers to educate us on 'why smacking is wrong', but I have never heard of any of the 'non-beating' child discipline methods that Bradford and Kiro are proponents of (other than time out, which isn't available when in public places). Anyone know some?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.

    Well, you have to give marks for consistency. That side of this debate has drawn this false equivalence since day one, and are still doing it. But they also seem surprised that false equivalence doesn't prove persuasive as an argument, which is what I find surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them."


    Cindy Kiro needs to get 'real'.

    That kind of physical abuse is more likely to come from another child, than an adult or a parent!

    "adults hit children because they would be in trouble if they hit other adults; or they would be hit back."

    Rubbish some children do hit, kick and bite adults/parents if they can get away with it. Some children even threaten to kill their parents if they don't get their own way! I've seen it happen on a number of occasions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whith this whole debate I come back to this. If it is not ok for me to come and smack you when you are out of line, why is it ok (in some eyes) to smack a child. To lift your hand to someone who doesn't have the power to resist and say no is bullying and abusive.
    Authoritarianism has no place in a loving and stable home.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon,

    f it is not ok for me to come and smack you when you are out of line, why is it ok (in some eyes) to smack a child.

    For the same reason that it is not ok for you to come and put me in time out or wipe my bottom if I've done a poopie and don't want it wiped - YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ME!!!

    Is that really that hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Authoritarianism has no place in a loving and stable home"

    What the?? Sounds like that would be a chaotic home to me. Unless of course you ban everything that would influence bad behavior - toys,music, movies, TV, friends, video games etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually yes. Violence of any type being acceptable in the home leads to violence in community. To lift your hand to a child is an abuse of your position as adult. Are you unable to talk your child through the issue. You LIKE smacking. YOU LIKE THE POWER. Seems like it with your attitude to my comment. There is help available. Remember IT'S NOT OK.
    Of course you also seem to have issues with your pottie training so...you may need more help.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon,

    you are an idiot.

    To link violence with smacking shows serious neural deficiency.

    The most violent child I have ever come across in my years as a parent being around other parent's children was an only child who was never smacked. I've also had to verbally tell this kid off for kicking my child, in full view of his mother and me because his mother seems to have no idea how to discipline him in any way.

    In my view, permissive parenting creates out of control children.

    Smacking is not harmful. Most NZ adults today have been smacked, their parents had been smacked and their parents had been smacking. Smacking is not some new fad that has only affected the last 30 years worth of children. And yet the social problems, the violence prevalent in NZ, has skyrocketed over the last few years especially.

    To link that to smacking is to ignore all the evidence of history, and to persist even when it is pointed out to you shows an idiocy that quite frankly, may not curable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The most violent child I have ever come across in my years as a parent being around other parent's children was an only child who was never smacked. I've also had to verbally tell this kid off for kicking my child, in full view of his mother and me because his mother seems to have no idea how to discipline him in any way."


    Lucyna.

    That's so true. I've be saying this also.

    I've seen that myself and been on the receiving end of it aswell.

    My brother (he works in a school) sees this and so do a number of teachers I know also.

    Children from no-smack families, can end up being the most abusive, bullying, unruly and violent children in and out of school!

    ReplyDelete
  11. If I'm reading my stats correctly, it looks like our anonymous commenter is from The Ministry of Social Development.

    It's good that you are here on this website, anon. You just might learn something. Take notes, too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “In my view, permissive parenting creates out of control children.”

    What rot. That statement is as stupid as Cindy’s. Being permissive doesn’t create out of control children, being incompetent does.

    (Disclaimer: I think the anti-smacking bill should go as parents should be allowed to choice how they parent, however I also think that smacking is not very effective parenting.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Socrates, I could also argue that permissive parents, by their very nature, are incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whith this whole debate I come back to this. If it is not ok for me to come and smack you when you are out of line, why is it ok (in some eyes) to smack a child.

    The thread wouldn't be complete without anti-smacking's other favourite false equivalence now, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. How many children you got psycho milt?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, anon, I agree with Lucyna.
    Yes, violence begets violence but smacking is not violence.

    Even hitting is not always wrong if it is for the right reason.
    What about the doctor who has to hit a patient in the chest to get his heart started again? Or the lifeguard who has to strike a panicked swimmer in trouble so they do not both drown and the lifeguard can bring him safely in?

    I'm sure there are many other instances.

    The fact is, that not smacking probably creates more violence in society. I have said this before, but if children cannot by disciplined at home or at school (and smacking is one form of discipline that sometimes must be applied, depending on the circumstance) then children will not develop self-control. They will be allowed to do anything they want.

    A child with no self control grows into an adult with no self control and no coping mechanism for when things do not go his way. He subsequently gets upset and lashes out in violence.

    And Kiro is the children's commissioner? Time to get someone who actually knows that they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "And Kiro is the children's commissioner? Time to get someone who actually knows that they're talking about."


    She's from the same 'School of PC Morons' who run the Ministry of Education.

    My brother was telling me recently how they get visits to the school he works at from the Ministry's Child 'Shrinks' from time to time.

    Anyway in their view it's usually the Teacher who's alway at fault always at fault not the child even if they've been causing trouble in the firstplace!

    The PC BS Teacher's in NZ have to put up with no wonder they quit and go and work overseas for twice the $$$!

    ReplyDelete
  18. How many children you got psycho milt?

    Why do you ask?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just interested as your comments are disturbing recently?

    ReplyDelete
  20. What disturbs you? I commented twice in this thread, to point out two examples of "False Equivalence:"

    1. Cindy Kiro falsely equating a smack with a punch in the head.

    2. Anonymous dyslexic falsely equating adults and children.

    Do you disagree that these are examples of false equivalence? I'd be surprised if you did.

    In answer to your question, I have two live children.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree psycho and I am just frustrated that the state has failed miserably through introducing more grey area in an attempt to address out of control child abuse and infanticide.

    The anti smacking crusade has backfired and falls well short of fixing insidious child abuse that is running rampant within our communities, while the Children’s Commissioner acts like a trained lying lemon devoid of intelligence and vision.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is it just me, or does "Ministry of Social Development" have an ominous Stalin-esque ring to it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. This has been going on for years. I can remember about 20 years ago writing a charter for the shopper's creche our kids went to for four hours per week. The ERO provided all sorts of material for us to consider such as making sure that the books did not over represent a mother doing the chores. It also included a pamphlet from the Ministry of Women's Affairs which implied if you were female and let someone else drive you, ate the burnt chop and did not hold a full time job you were not a complete woman. So I am not surprised at the increasing control of the state in our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  24. More state control in our lives, but no Ministry of Men's Affairs so a balance can be achieved for the children?

    Go figure,only in feminaziland, meanwhile coward Key kisses Tame Iti !!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cindy Kiro's email address is children@occ.org.nz NOT acc.or.nz

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have sent the following email/letter to Cindy Kiro. I hope others will also email her.


    Dear Dr Kiro

    I am posting this email to you on Muriel Newman’s New Zealand Centre for Political Research Forum. I will be happy to post your response.

    http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124

    I am writing in response to your article on Stuff, “Keeping our children safe”.

    I realise that it would be pointless to try and debate the issue of parent’s rights with you as you are primarily concerned with keeping your highly paid job and pushing the ideologically driven Labour government line which undermines parental authority.

    Do you recall when Phil Goff floated the idea of 12 year olds being allowed to have sex? There was a public outcry. I might have missed but I heard no comment from you. Did you condemn Labour for flying that kite?

    I also cannot recall hearing any comment from you regarding the hunter in the Taupo area leaving a 2 and 5 year old in his car for two hours while he went hunting recently. The 2 year old went missing in the bush and was fortunately found after 50 searches looked for about five hours. The police are still deciding whether to charge him. I presume you have heard of this case.

    The case that I really take exception to is the one below. Would kindly explain why you are going on with a lot of nonsense about a wall of silence and not demanding that this young man be prosecuted and the mother as well if as alleged in the article that she was aware of the sexual nature of her daughter’s relationship and choose to do nothing about it?

    As your employer I urge you to get your priorities right and forget about some child getting a flick on the ear and give this case urgent priority which is long overdue. This case is open and shut. If you cannot ensure this case goes to court I suggest you resign so that maybe your replacement will place the welfare of children ahead of pleasing his or her political master.

    Regards
    Chuck Bird

    Minor has baby: no charges laid
    5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
    By Stephen Cook


    Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl - even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.

    The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.

    The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
    However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.

    Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.

    A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.

    Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.

    It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.

    A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.

    It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.

    Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.

    Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.

    Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.

    The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.


    MY EMAIL IS IN RESPONSE TO


    Keeping our children safe
    By CINDY KIRO
    The Dominion Post | Monday, 04 February 2008

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cindy Kiro is a master of double-speak. Her idea of "safe" is vastly different to mine. But in her authoritarian world, individual opinion counts for nothing and the state would assume control of all children, hence her article referring to "our" children.

    Like all members of the Self-Anointed, she is deceitful and dangerous.

    D4J: Why the hell do you want a Ministry of Men's Affairs to combat the inane Women's Ministry? God forbid. The answer is *less* state, not more.

    Turf them out. Don't add more!

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Turf them out. Don't add more!"
    Needs to become the mantra of Kiwis, before we're submerged in bureaucrats.

    ReplyDelete
  29. chuck, why dont you give Kiro a call, rather than sendingheran email - her phone number is 021 396 782

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chuck do be careful mate . Kiro made a complaint to police about me, however I had evidence that proved she was a liar. It went no further.

    She will try and set you up mate, because she is a dangerous women controlled by Klark.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dave, surely you know what an open letter is and the point of sending one. If you could explain to me what I might possible I achieve by phoning Cindy Kiro I would seriously consider phoning her.

    Regards
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.