|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
15 April
07
"Reasonable
Force" in Schools
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>> |
 The
anti-smacking activists claim that with corporal punishment
having been banned in schools, banning it in the home is
simply the next step towards eliminating violence against
children. But the argument just isn’t credible.
Advocates of a the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act
which allows parents to use “reasonable force” for the
purpose of correcting their children, rely heavily on the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).
In particular, Article 19 of UNCROC, which says:
State
Parties shall take all appropriate legislative,
administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence,
injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment
or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care
of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the
care of the child.
They claim that to “protect the child from all forms
of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or
negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation”,
the use of “reasonable force” for the purpose of
correction must be banned. In other words they are claiming
that the use of “reasonable force” to discipline children
is equivalent to bashing them. This is clearly wrong.
A similar erroneous argument was used by Labour to justify the
banning of corporal punishment in schools. Yet, the
Headmaster, who used the strap or cane as a last resort to
reinforce to the school bully that cruelty would not be
tolerated, or to the willfully abusive and disruptive student
that his behaviour was totally unacceptable, was simply
fulfilling the responsibilities given under Article 19, to
protect the other children in the school from violence and
intimidation.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Bruce Logan, a
Christchurch based writer and founder of the Maxim Institute, was
a member of the PPTA Executive at the time when the banning of
corporal punishment in schools was being considered. He earned
himself a sanction from the union by daring to say publicly
that he was not convinced the majority of teachers were in
favour of abolition.
It
is little wonder – schools were not given an opportunity to
have their say on the ban, as Labour did not allow public
consultation!
The
proposal to abolish corporal punishment in schools had
originally appeared as clause 66 in a Crimes Bill in 1989.
Without warning it was inserted into the 1990 Education
Amendment Bill as it was going through its final debates in
Parliament.
It
is described in Hansard in this way: “Part 1 has had slipped
into it at the last moment a clause to abolish corporal
punishment in all schools, including private schools. The
schools have had no chance to make submissions on the matter.
The Government has sneaked it into the Bill at the last
moment. The Government has said that people had the chance to
make submissions when the Crimes Bill was before a select
committee. However, schools did not make a submission on that
provision in the Crimes Bill because they did not know it was
in that Bill”.
In
his article “The Rise of Violence in Schools”, Bruce Logan
states, “The
claim, which suggested a link between corporal punishment and
violence in schools has been proved wrong. Violence in schools
has increased tremendously since abolition”.
(To read the full article, click
>>>)
According
to a
Massey
University
study, there are now very high levels of bullying in
New Zealand
schools. It is the number one problem for many children with
up to three-quarters of students claiming they are being
subjected to some form of bullying.
But
it doesn’t just stop with the students. Two
out of three
New Zealand
secondary school teachers claim they were abused or threatened
by their students each year.
The
Massey study goes on to cite research in
Sweden
, which shows that unless their behaviour is modified, 60%
of intermediate school bullies had criminal convictions by 24
years of age. (to
see study, click
>>>)
With
the latest crime statistics showing that over the last twelve months there
has been a 10% increase in violence by young people, and that
the number of teenagers arrested for violent offences is a
third more than a decade ago, it certainly appears that the
escalating violence in schools is contributing to the rising
rate of youth crime.
(See RadioNZ, click
>>>).
As
the anti-smacking bill edges closer to becoming law, the
question that we need to ask is whether the anti-smacking
advocates were right: has the abolition of corporal punishment
reduced violence in schools? The answer is a resounding no!
Violence in schools is increasing; the law took away an
important measure that was available to schools to enforce
disciplinary standards.
So
while Labour is planning to impose this failed policy onto New
Zealand parents, it is worth noting that the tide is turning
in the UK where the power to use “reasonable force” to
discipline unruly students has just been given to teachers!
Prime
Minister Tony Blair is blaming the increase in gang and gun
crime being committed by violent and disaffected youths on the
fact that “youngsters are being brought up in a setting that
has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around
them”. The introduction of reasonable force into schools is
designed to help rectify that. (To read the story click here>>>)
Tony
Blair has seen the light. I wonder if there is any hope for our Prime Minister?
The
poll this week asks: Do you
think that
New Zealand
teachers should be able to use “reasonable force” to
discipline unruly students?
Take
part in poll >>>
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPD Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
|
