For Immediate Release
Media Release
24 June 2009
CIR critic's forced sex-smacking argument fails
The Society contends that Deborah Coddington has failed in her attempt (Herald on Sunday 21 June) to illustrate the
absurdity of the 'smacking law' question in the forthcoming CIR which she argues is equivalent to the absurd question -
“Should forced sex, as part of a good marriage, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" How would the public respond to
this question she asks, if put by lobbyists in a CIR seeking to put an end to rape within marriage, at a time when "it
was once considered legal for a husband to rape his wife, or vice versa, because marriage was taken as consent."
It is sad to see such a pathetic, erroneous and misleading argument being used yet again by a self-described "grumpy"
grown woman. Her attempt to argue by way of comparison or even analogy fails. There is no equivalence between a CIR
question on smacking and her silly and stupid one on forced sex. "By hokey" (to use her words) is this the best she can
offer in reasoned argument?
The vast majority of people today, as in earlier times, do not recognise forced sex as part of a GOOD marriage. In fact
it is a symptom of a sick and failed 'marriage'.
In contrast the vast majority of people today, as in earlier times, do recognise that a smack, involving reasonable
force for the purpose of correction of a child, may form part of GOOD parental discipline and should not be
criminalised. And yes it can be delivered by a loving parent, a fact that Ms Coddington cannot comprehend.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not forced marital sex should or should not be treated as a criminal offence,
the failure of the law in earlier times to provide protection against marital rape was a failure of the law, NOT
evidence that most people or a significant number actually approved of and/or promoted or or condoned husbands raping
their wives or vice versa.
If a child was allegedly assaulted prior to the repeal of s. 59, in the context of parental disciplinary action, and the
perpetrator of the alleged crime was acquitted by a jury of his/her peers or a judge, this was NOT because the jury or
judge considered it legal to assault children, but rather because the Court determined that their action did NOT
constitute an assault under the Crimes Act.
Ms Coddington appears to be so consumed and enlightened by the adrenaline derived from her self-confessed grumpiness
that she deliivers her 'knock-out blow' in these terms: "There is no such thing as a loving smack, just as there is no
such thing as a hateful hug." ..... to which 85% of parents who intend to vote "Yes" at the referendun retort... "By
hokey Debborah .... 'There are none so blind as her who refuses to see!"
ENDS