Deborah Morris-Travers, in an opinion piece  in the Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10494956 speaks up for the Anti-Smacking point of view.    She reveals how hard it is to parent without smacking but that she has thought hard about it and this is the way she has chosen to bring up her daughter. Now I am prepared to respect her right to parent her child in the way she chooses. What I do not respect is that she or anyone else has a right to force others to parent the way Deborah Morris-Travers chooses.

I might suspect that her method of parenting could be ultimately damaging to her child: that she is teaching her child to argue with parents, to disobey when she feels like it, to ignore the inconvenience to which she puts others, and to set herself up as the final arbiter of if and when she will obey rules and laws set up for the greater good of family and society. Ms Morris-Travers may be able to stop her single child going off the rails with copious attention and money,  but I might condemn her  approach as impractical for parents with several children each jealous of the other's share of parental attention and power over the family.    However I would not be so rude as to intervene in the parent-child relationship and  belittle the mother and her method of discipline in front of the child - unlike the anti-smackers who are determined to intervene. Even if I think she is very wrong I would  not seek to pass a law against her method of child-rearing, threatening her with investigation by Police or CYFS because of my suspicion of long-term harm. But  how dare Bradford and Clark outlaw REASONABLE force (note: not beatings, by definition) for purposes of CORRECTING a child  merely because of their unproven child-raising theories. Their law is NZ law and must be obeyed but I regard it with utter contempt and loathing.  Repeal their bill !