Richard Boock: Floored by smackdown

Relevant offers

Sports columnists

Tin top would give Dunedin stadium plenty of pizzazz Richard Boock: Lord Sachin is Mr Cricket Eric Young: Easy Ryder something to shout about Billy Harris: Soccer year from Andrei to Zenit League lads no chance at Halbergs WEIRD WORLD OF SPORT Hayden's dilemma: walk or wait to be given out CRASHING BACK TO EARTH PHIL GIFFORD: Arrogant and racist Ocker shockers living in the past BILLY HARRIS: NZFC merits a change

Someone from Parents Inc suggested the other day, following my criticisms of Sir Brian Lochore's comments on political correctness, that we should never forget that he is a great New Zealander. When it comes to public issues such as the anti-smacking debate, I have to disagree. In fact, the first thing we should do is forget he is a great New Zealander. The priority should be to judge the substance of the comments, not the reputation of the person who made them.

Sir Brian and I had a chat last week and parted on good terms, though agreeing to disagree. No doubt he is a fine man. One of the many respondents last week generously mentioned that few people will ever be hanging on my every word, as they do with Sir Brian. I can only agree with that. His reputation and influence is immense, which is precisely why he was asked to speak to the parenting group in the first place.

But you only need to think of the folk who took Colin Meads' advice on investment funds to see how this can have a downside. SBL is welcome to his opinions but we should always reserve the right to challenge them. Especially as they carry such sway. If anyone doubts people are silly enough to accept his words on face value, merely because of his services to rugby, they should check out some of the online reaction to last week's column.

Sir Brian believed political correctness was destroying our community. He spoke about behaviours that he could no longer indulge in because "you can't do that anymore". We didn't smack children apparently because we were too PC. We didn't leave the kids in the back of cars anymore because the PC world had made that unsafe.

The point made last week was that it's impossible to revert back to the values of SBL's "un-PC" world without also returning to an environment in which women were emasculated, children were beaten, male dominance was institutionalised, homosexuality was condemned and minority groups discriminated against. No one is trying to pin any of that behaviour on SBL, or suggest he's lived anything but a life of blameless excellence. But it was the reality of his, and for that matter, my parents' generation. It was less enlightened and more bigoted.

The most astonishing response has come from those who refuse to accept this. Many have delusions that women were better off in the past than they are now, that it was better for children in the days when they were "seen but not heard", and stunningly, that today's community is much more violent. Really? Presumably we're not counting the thousands of young men we blew to smithereens in our violent, warring past? Or the number of children beaten on a weekly basis at home, school and at their friend's house. Presumably we believe that because women didn't report domestic abuse, none existed?

As for some of the other feedback, being criticised for the strength of my opinion by NZ Herald columnist Garth George and lectured on the need for moderation by Martin Devlin, hasn't yet persuaded me that I'm on the wrong side of the argument. To those who kept their messages brief: "you are a knob", a "whiney prick", a "nancy-boy", a "girly man", and "you make logical connections just like a woman", thank you for participating. To the Colliers' man, may I just mention you somewhat betrayed your real estate background with the comment that my views were "floored".

There were also numerous suggestions that if I had children, they must be some sort of horrendous delinquents. Sorry to disappoint (touch wood) but no dramas yet. Then again, anything could happen, I guess. You'll just have to keep hoping. Oh, and to the gent who said he didn't believe in corporal punishment but that a thick ear never hurt anyone, thank you so much. Maybe those who insist that everyone knows the difference between a smack and a hit will be reading.

If they are, may I suggest they also consider the notion that, just because they think they understand the difference between a smack and a hit, it doesn't mean the child does. The perception from that end of the exchange might be quite different. Many of my peers have mentioned this, saying they were terrified by overbearing, adult, physical intimidation. The semantics of the debate never really occurred to them. They didn't learn to respect authority; they learnt to fear it.

Why shouldn't we discuss SBL's comments? I don't believe in smacking kids and agree with the current law. It's abhorrent to suggest you have the right to strike children just because you can. I'm pleased people are being challenged about physically disciplining their children, but astonished so many are clamouring to have the new law repealed. If it wasn't for the cruel reality, the thought of folk anguishing over violence on one hand and desperately insisting on the right to hit children on the other, would be funny.

In response to the many queries; no, we never smacked our kids, didn't see any logic in it and felt unhappy about the mere idea of it, let alone the practice. There was always a better, more intelligent option. The idea of inflicting pain or discomfort in order to gain compliance or to express disapproval was simply wrong-headed. We tried to parent, not punish. It was just a mind-set, but we thought it an important one.

May I also say that I found it deeply ironic that so many people who agreed with SBL's criticism of political correctness, who clearly believed in the idea of calling a spade a spade rather than a gardening implement, found the manner in which I attacked his views so unsavoury and offensive. What are they saying? That they disagree with political correctness in the main, but reserve the right to use it to protect former All Black greats?

Or is it just that they don't understand what it is?

- © Fairfax NZ News