Anti-Smacking Referendum – Should a what be a what?

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? “

Frankly, I don’t understand people’s confusion over the question. To me it perfectly makes sense.

To discuss this, let’s dwell a little bit into linguistic by studying the sentence structure. Once we think this over, you’ll see how it may even be impossible to express this with any other sentence.

1. Sentence Structure: To understand the question properly we need to know the basic structure of the thoughts behind the sentence. This is a common “Should…?” question that follows a “Should X be Y”, or more specifically “Should X be Y in Z” where X is the subject in question, Y is the desired/undesired condition, and Z is the location/limitation.
2. Identifying the Elements: By following the above pattern, we can dissect the sentence into:

• Should
• X = a smack as part of good parental correction
• be
• Y = a criminal offence
• in
• Z = New Zealand

Why “a smack as part of good parental correction”?

The most basic definition (unaltered/unbiased definition of a smack is:

• a blow from a flat object (as an open hand)

In this topic, smack can be interpreted in two ways: abusive and corrective. Obviously, a smack that leaves marks/injuries, uses tools/instruments, and/or without any valid reason can be considered as abusive. Likewise, a smack with valid reason (e.g., correcting a behavior) that does not leave any marks/injuries/lasting physical effects and is intended only for the reason should be determined as corrective.

The referrendum only concerns itself with the corrective form of smacking, and therefore it needs to specify this in the question as “a smack as part of good parental correction”. Simplifying the question into “a smack” would imply that the referendum supporters wishes for abuse to be opened.

So what does the referendum question mean?

The smacking referendum asks you to consider whether this corrective form of smacking should be a criminal offence as the current law seems to inadvertently cause (or open). There are debates that the current law does not seek to criminalise good parents. However, “does not seek to” is different to “to protect good parenting”. A law must not deliberately or knowingly leave itself open to different interpretation. As such, if a weakness in the wordings is discovered then the law should be ammended to avoid any potential abuse.

For example, a law that states “drivers who drink are to be prosecuted” clearly does not seek to prosecute those who drink Cocacola, but the wordings do allow technical ability to prosecute them should one lawyer be persistent enough. As such it would have been changed to “drivers who contain blood alcohol above certain threshold are to be prosecuted”.

Similarly, this anti-smacking bill referendum seek to identify whether New Zealanders agree whether the bill may not have been thought off properly.

So, to understand, the referendum asks you:

Should “corrective smack” be a criminal offence here?

Yes means you agree with Sue Bradford.

No means you disagree with Sue Bradford.

I hope that helps simplify what is actually already simple enough. They could not possibly word the referendum any differently.