Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Here are the replies/stances taken by several MPs I emailed, regarding Section59:
Gordon Copeland - United Future list MP
Judy Turner- United Future deputy leader
Chester Borrows- National mp
Friday, October 20, 2006
After seeing the petition against Labours latest retrospective legislation, I was thinking maybe we could start a petition against the repeal of section 59 also?
But it probably wouldn't do much, as every poll on issue so far has been pretty overwhelming in it's support of section 59 and the Government is still pursuing the legislation.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
check out Muriel Newman's article from Janurary 06 regarding section59 here. It covers the infamous bodyshop campaign for the repealling of section59.
Here is the New Zealand Herald article on the results of extensive research on smacking that is hitting the liberals so hard
If you haven't already, get onto www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz and add yourself onto their mailing list!
Monday, October 09, 2006
Did anyone see the Smacking study hits at claims of harm article in the weekend herald? check it out... it is very interesting!
The Herald don't leave their links up for long so I'll copy some of the interesting bits.
Children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked, found the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study, which has tracked 1000 children since they were born in the city in 1972-73.
…lead author of the physical punishment part of the Dunedin study, psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand.--Preliminary analysis showed that those who were merely smacked had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
"Study members in the 'smacking only' category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society," she said.--"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
"The more honest researchers have said, let's be honest, we all wish we could say it's all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child - although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself - but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Here's a couple of things that everyone's thinking, but not everyone is prepared to say:
1. The third point in Sue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill says:
"The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children."
The oxymoronical wording of this point is surely evidence enough that Sue Bradford's proposed ammendment is ridiculous. When a society begins supporting the illegilisation of "reasonable" things, then that society has got issues. Big issues.
2. Many, if not most of the advocates of the repealling of Section 59 are linked in some way to Children's Right's organisations. Instead of hammering the law-abiding parents who want the best for the kids, why don't these community-spirited people and groups turn their attention to an issue that is affecting our country, and our country's children to a much greater extent? That issue is abortion. Compared with the murder of 17.5 thousand young children last year (see the statistics on www.stats.govt.nz, the smacking issue really does pale into insignificance!
Lets get our priorities sorted out New Zealand!
Polls: New Zealanders want to keep Section 59
1. Check out this article on Scoop.co.nz Massive Opposition to Repeal of Section 59
Keep Section 59: 83.8% (5,322 respondents)
Repeal Section 59: 12.6% (800 respondents)
Not sure: 3.6% (228 respondents)
2. Down the bottom of the polls page on Muriel Newman's site, you can see the results of her poll on the issue:
Keep Section 59: 97%
Repeal Section 59: 3%
Responses received: 1593
3. TV One Opinon Poll: see the article on the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards website
Support parent's right to use reasonable force: 93%
The tvnz.co.nz poll is still active. Vote here:
4. New Zealand Herald online poll (mid 2005) see the article on www.nzherald.co.nz here
Keep Section 59: 71.2%
Repeal Section 59: 21%
5. Child abuse conference in Wellington, NZ. See: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (second paragraph)
“Smacking is ok” 82%
“Keep Section 59” 60%
Monday, September 11, 2006
If it is repealed, parents of the future will not have the ability to efficiently and properly discipline their children.
We believe that it is not for the government to interfere with the family at this level.
Violence and smacking (corporal punishment) are not the same thing. Those people who use the word interchangeably are being intentionally misleading.
New Zealand was initially founded upon core Christian values. Upon children respecting their parents. Upon parents caring enough for their children to, when necessary, perform the thankless task of corporal punishment.
We in no way condone the shocking acts of violence against children by their parents. However criminalising parental corporal punishment is not the way to solve the problem.
This website is here to inform of the latest developments, and as a forum - a rallying point for those of us dedicated to putting a stop to this proposed repeal.
watch this space!