Saturday, April 28, 2007

David Farrar: Bradford's bill is anti-smacking bill

this from www.kiwiblog.co.nz

One should give credit to Sue Bradford for her willingness to talk to John Key on a compromise, even though no agreement could be reached. This is not entirely surprising considering Bradford has always said she is unwilling to define any acceptable level of force - even light smacking, as being worse than the status quo

Plaque on both their houses points out how extraordinary Bradford's position is - arguing that reducing the level of acceptable force is worse than the status quo.

Now Bradford has come out and said that the fear parents have that this bans smacking is the fault of bill opponents. But having had occasion to reread her bill this week, her protestations of innocence do not add up. Just look at the official purpose of the Bill:

The purpose of this Act is ... abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

Now this is as clear as day. None of this Clark bullshit about just removing a defence. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for correction. Now it could not be clearer. Smacking is a subset of parental force for correction. The purpose of the Bill hence is to abolish or ban smacking. These are Bradford's own words in her own bill.

This is why compromise could not be found. The aim of the bill is to abolish the use of any parental force for correction.

Now looking through the Bill again I found to my horror the amended Bill is far far worse, in my opinion, than the original Bill was.

Why?

The original bill merely deleted Section 59. It left the law silent on parental correction. It meant there was no specific statutory defence, but the judicial authorities would be able to consider the circumstances of particular cases.

But the amended bill goes far beyond just abolishing the specific defence. It states in s59(2):

Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

I should have highlighted this earlier. This doesn't just remove parental correction as a defence. It outlaws it by statute. And even worse it specifically wipes out any ability of a court to consider common law in its interpretation. I'd say that any case that makes court, no matter how trivial, will be a slam dunk for the prosecution. Because 59(2) explicitly rules out any defence.

So when Sue Bradford and Helen Clark claim the bill does not outlaw or ban smacking, remember these two things:

(1) The stated purpose of the Bill is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction

(2) Section 59(2) explicitly forbids the use of any force for the purpose of correction


So remember this bill is not just about removing a defence. The Bill's own purpose states it is about banning parental correction which uses force, which includes smacking.

...Heh such Green logic - so that means if I drive at 150 km/hr I am not breaking the law unless they catch me :-)

10 comments:

dad4justice said...

Thank you Andy for your kind comments. Someone has been posting under the identity dad4justice since I first joined up as a blogger on kiwiblog( Nov 2006). The child abuse allegations made against me are so painful, because they cause immense heartbreak. Unfortunately it is sad topic that strikes a tender string in my heart, as false allegations of a sordid nature = sexual child abuse were made to cyfs and family court six years ago. Today I am still trying to get access to my daughters through the family court.
Those fools on kiwiblog, who attack my credibility as a father, call me a child molester –paedophile etc.…. They are just deluded utopians - divorced from reality and are the same people who advocate seeds of anarchy, rebellion and rioting in our world.

For the record: I am a loving dad of 4 kiwi born children. The evidence I am a good father is my children whom love me to bits.
I guess all I can do is ask a loving God to forgive the likes of Mrs Disgusted and James Sleep.I am struggling to forgive as my feelings are rather shell shocked at present. I am a soldier of truth/ righteousness and physical pain does not compare to malicious statements made against a man ‘s integrity and dignity. I feel rather sick about the whole sorrowful insinuations made on the David Farrar’s blog.

Rivers ( and men ) get crooked by following the line of least resistance .

Section 59 survivor said...

Hi Dad4justice,

That is absolutely disgusting and totally inappropriate. No one deserves to be called and labeled such libelous statements. Those fools who engage in such behaviour need to be taken to task and sued.

Furthermore, they are doing their own cause absolutely no favours and are simply showing themselves to be cowards and losers.

Best wishes to you.

S59 survivor
Palmerston North

Andy Moore said...

You're the man D4J.
Do email me things to put on this blog mate!

S59 Survivor, what is your stand on the S59 debate? Are you for or against repeal?

Section 59 survivor said...

Hi Dad4justice,

I really do have an open mind on it. You will understand, I am sure, that because of my history, I find it really difficult to know the way forward on the issue on S59. I think parliament really has to re-think their whole strategy to get everyone on board over this very important issue.

I certainly do understand the general fear out there about good parents being prosecuted. I think that fear is very valid.

For my own part, my story is really to tell the risks involved in inflicting pain in childhood which has caused so much damage to my life. My story should explain this.

It has only been in the last few years that I have confronted my self-injury behaviour full on and the childhood roots behind it.

I think my story may also help explain why people end up in unhealthy sexual 'pain play' such as kink and BDSM. And why others end up doing serious harm to themselves under the guise of "Body Modification". In my own journey, I have done a lot of research on this, mainly to understand my own behaviour and it's causes. This has helped me recognise my own behaviour in others too.

This blog has been very helpful to me. I need to thank Jonathan for 'provoking' me as by talking about my experiences here, this has helped me forward to forgiveness. I now think that if my parents knew what was happening to me in my childhood, they would have stopped smacking me, or stopped causing pain by smacking.

It was not simply the smacking that caused the damage, but the pain, fear, and humiliation associated with it.

My main focus now is to raise awareness of the phenomenon of 'pain enjoyment' in childhood (with some children like myself) how it can lead to self-injury behaviour and the long-term psychological damage that can result from it.

There are a lot of teenagers who self-harm, and I would like to reach out to them and help them overcome it.

Many thanks to all of you.

S59 Survivor
Palmerston North.

Anonymous said...

If the legislation is passed in exactly the form required by Sue Bradford, the world will stay much as it is at the present time.

Lets face the simple fact that people continue to do whatever they're conditioned to do regardless of any legislation. All this panic is needless. Those who must smack lightly will be able to continue to smack lightly and will be able to do so with virtual impunity. Those who must not smack at all (lightly or otherwise) will be satisfied that a piece of legislation is finally making all the 'right' noises. All this panic about thousands of vigilante policemen patrolling the streets looking for smackers and 'good parents' to prosecute is about as stupid as the Y2K panic. I think the legislation should pass. In any case the old saying that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" will prove very accurate.

Graham Wolf

Andy Moore said...

No Graham.

First, read Bradford's bill.

If Bradford's bill is passed into law, parents who continue to smack their children will be breaking the law.

Initially, you won't hear much about parents getting their children taken off them because they were smacked.

But just you wait, mate. Within 10, 20 years or less, this piece of legislation will be being used to it's utmost extent.

Bradford's bill is a decisive move in the wrong direction, and let me assure you, is merely the first step in a big agenda.

Helen Clark, before she came into power stated several goals that she had. She has accomplished some of these. One of her goals is that children would be no longer "owned by their parents", but that they would become part of the state.

If you belive the lies that Bradford, Clark and their supporters are telling New Zealand, then I pity you mate.

Read the bill for yourself and stand along the 83% of Kiwis who want S59 left alone.

Anonymous said...

It occurs to me to say that the 83% or thereabouts of citizens against the S59 amendment is likely also to be reflected within the specific ranks of our total police force (statistics has a funny way of being like this). It therefore stands to reason that even if the amendment is passed into law in exactly the form Sue Bradford wishes it to be passed, then the majority of policemen (most of whom would probably use the light smack on their own children for discipline) are highly unlikely to suddenly behave as "leopards changing their spots". They are not likely to vigorously pursue what they themselves would regard as trivial and insignificant prosecutions. In fact, under current law, bringing "trivial and vexatious cases" before the courts can be treated as contempt of court.

Graham Wolf

Andy Moore said...

83% of policemen do not necessarily decide whether or not they investigate a situation. Someone above them tells them what to do.

Look at Sweden.

Quite apart from that, parents who do smack their children will be doing so outside of the law. One concerned mother said to me: "how can I smack my child when he knows that it is against the law for me to do so?"

It's a no-brainer. When many polls give the average that 83% of Kiwis are against the legislation, it is time for a referendum.

Either that or dump the bill.

And here's me thinking we're a democracy.

Section 59 survivor said...

Hi Andy,

I just realised, it was you who asked the question to me. Please regard my reply addressed to both you and dad4justice. Sorry about that.

Regards,

s59 survivor
PN

Anonymous said...

LOL ... a democracy? Someone actually believes that a democracy really IS a democracy?

Yes, I take the point that a referendum is in order and it would be the democratic thing to do - but that still wouldn't make a democracy any more real than the fantasy it actually is for EVERYONE.

Though I favour the amendment (we'll have to agree to differ) I'm not excessively concerned either way.

Anyway, it's far too late, didn't realise the time so goodnight.

Graham Wolf