CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27914, 10 March 1956, Page 5

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Sir, —Through an error, my letter should have read, ‘‘and may decide,” not “and decide,” eliminating the implication of vicarious violence. Surely “1.5. T. realises that to assault weaker people is an act of brutality. We have a record of a child thrashed in school and died within two days. If children were born stronger than their parents and thrashed them to compel parental conformity to their standards, probably “1.5. T. . would demand legal prohibitions inversely as in the Soviet Union corporal punishment for children is illegal. No-one thinks of attacking a car to make it go. Normal children adapt themselves to a wholesome environment, imitate exemplary elders, are encouraged by suggestions, especially suggestions while they sleep. Abnormal children require the care of psychologists. Violence with its concomitant fear adds to the problem of training and increases the huge army of neurotics in our midst.—Yours, etc., JOHN BURBRIDGE. March 7, 1C56.

Sir,—The inhumanity of human beings is exemplified in recent times by the Germans, Russians, Japanese, and Chinese, all of whom invaded their neighbours to commit acts as stupidly cruel as any in the memory pf man. These and the continuing acts of political butchery by the armies and agents of Communist imperialism do not inspire me in the belief that the youth of New Zealand are wrongfully trained to national selfdefence. Defencelessness did not save Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania from invasion by Soviet Russia. These, like New Zealand, were small nations, but, unlike us, they did not join powerful friends in a system of selfdefence. Communist youth is taught to hate as well as to bear arms. This has never been the case with servicemen of the British Crown, who, in any generation, are not less civilised than John Burbridge.—Yours, etc., FABYN. March 7, 1956.