Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Nicholson continues his abuse of men/fathers

Alastair Nicholson provides an insight into why he went on to abuse children (and their fathers) via the FCA.

Ex-FCA boss Alastair Nicholson continues his attack on men and fathers viz "wife-beaters" and "domestic violence":
Nicholson #1 said
Smacking naughty children could help create schoolyard bullies and wife-beaters and should be outlawed, a former judge said. Retired Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said his own courtroom experiences backed research linking punishment with soaring rates of street and domestic violence and playground and cyber-bullying.
Nicholson then goes on to provide an insight into why he went on to abuse children (and their fathers) via the FCA … it was because (he claims) he was disciplined at boarding school (the fact that he was at boarding school may also have coloured his views about family and fathers):
Nicholson #2 said
"If a child's parents treat him or her abusively and violently, then it is not surprising that the child will also see this conduct as appropriate," he said. Mr Nicholson, who was caned by teachers and prefects at Scotch College in the early 1950s, called on state governments to follow New Zealand's move last year to abolish the legal defence of "reasonable chastisement" for parents who hit children.
Herald Sun
21 February 2008

Smacking 'could help create bullies, bashers'
By Fay Burstin

Smacking naughty children could help create schoolyard bullies and wife-beaters and should be outlawed, a former judge said.

Retired Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson said his own courtroom experiences backed research linking punishment with soaring rates of street and domestic violence and playground and cyber-bullying.

"If a child's parents treat him or her abusively and violently, then it is not surprising that the child will also see this conduct as appropriate," he said.

"In my view, the only way we are likely to break this cycle is to stress from the earliest possible stage that violence is not a solution to anything."

Mr Nicholson, who was caned by teachers and prefects at Scotch College in the early 1950s, called on state governments to follow New Zealand's move last year to abolish the legal defence of "reasonable chastisement" for parents who hit children.

In Australia, this excuse has been used successfully by parents accused of whipping a child with implements including a cattle prod, stock whip, dog lead, belts and sticks, of forcing a child to eat cigars, and of tying up a child with a dog chain.

"I am concerned that we will have to wait for some particularly brutal attack upon a child to occur and be publicised before the current torpor of our politicians … can be overcome," Mr Nicholson said in a recent article in the international journal Family Court Review.

Almost 70 per cent of parents, many of whom were hit as children, believe spanking is acceptable discipline.

But Mr Nicholson believes most would change their minds if they knew the probable effects.

NSW passed Australia's only anti-smacking law in 2001, banning the application of non-trivial physical force.

But even this was a weak compromise sending the wrong message, he said.

A British think-tank last week called for a ban after releasing a study that concluded hitting children, however lightly, increased the chances of anti-social and criminal behaviour in later life.

"Banning parents from any form of physical punishment of children … would not only reduce criminality in the long term, but would also send out a message about the kind of society we want to be - one in which violence and physical abuse are not tolerated," the report said.

Australian Childhood Foundation chief Joe Tucci echoed the call for law reform, but doubted the occasional smack would damage children.

"It's persistent physical punishment, not the occasional smack, that increases aggressive behaviour among children," he said.

"But you don't have to hit kids to teach them a lesson, and it's time the Government took this seriously."

But Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said a ban would only create anger and defensiveness among parents, undermining their confidence.

"To make discipline work, parents need to be the boss.

"What we need is parental education and policies that give tired and overstretched parents the time and resources to understand what constructive discipline looks like.

"Try screening positive parenting programs on television at a time when parents can sit and watch."
LiveNews
21 February 2008

Spare the rod, smack the parents: Judge
By Shannon McRae in Melbourne

AAP - Former Victorian family court justice Alistair Nicholson says he's seen the physical products of corporal punishment, and its not the best way to deal with child delinquents.

Mr Nicholson said he saw evidence through his years in court that children who were taught that violence was an effective way to deal with issues often ended up with problems later in life.

"If a child's parents treat him or her abusively and violently, then it is not surprising that the child will also see this conduct as appropriate," he told News Limited today.

"In my view, the only way we are likely to break this cycle is to stress from the earliest possible stage that violence is not a solution to anything."

Mr Nicholson wants Australia to follow New Zealand's lead and abolish the legal defence of `reasonable chastisement' for parents who hit children.

He said he was himself hit with canes while a boarding student at Melbourne's Scotch College in the 1950s.

But child expert Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation, argued that a light smack occasionally never hurt anyone.

Mmmm of corse they never consider

The destruction of the family unit and the isolation of one parent.


For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Let's see going by this theory Alastair was a thug who made it to be a judge, a violent bully and a blight on society.

Do people think before speaking?

If any authority has allowed such diabolical crimes as listed as "reasonable chastisement" then I would think that it would send a message that the law itself considers this acceptable falling squarely upon the judges themselves.  

Although I abhor violence I understand the necessity of a light smack to encourage children to stay safe.

We see a steady increase in violence over the years even though corporal punishment has been removed from schools and in many cases the household, we see it increase as more authority is being stripped from schools and police. ( back when I was young if you got caught by the police they'd clip you around the ear kick you up the bum and send you on your way).

We also have an increased level of entertainment violence quite unlike F-Troop and sega, to the point it desensitises the effects of violence.

More access to harder drugs and alcohol and parents who just instil no form of ethics in their children or assist in their demise by creating conflict.

But is this to blame ? well obviously not as far as Alistair's concerned it all revolves what happened to him in the 50's.

How about trying to get the organizations to stop the abuse that's been listed and deal with this before looking at Mr and Mrs Average stopping Johnny running out onto the road or pulling a supermarket display on top of himself.

I have to ask am I missing something here or am I over reacting?

And I'm someone who last smacked their child through a nappy that stopped any contact at all but it did make a noise.
The general message is - if people do have some 'agenda' - then maybe they should be upfront about it BEFORE they get into positions of power rather than after they retire. That way the people who have to deal with the person can have some sort of chance.

He represents the tip of the iceburg - all over the place their are people with their 'ideas' on how things work - many lacking the guts to have an open discussion about things. A bit like the occaisional 'guest' here who hides their inabilities behind personal abuse of the posters on this site.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Mr Nicholson said he saw evidence through his years in court that children who were taught that violence was an effective way to deal with issues often ended up with problems later in life.

He said he was himself hit with canes while a boarding student at Melbourne's Scotch College in the 1950s.

So is Nicholson saying that he himself believes in violence as an effective way to deal with issues because of the way he was brought up?

Did he end up with problems later in life? Judging from his miserable tenure as CJ, the jury of his peers and the public public have already decided on that.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets