No Smacking - or State Control?

from the South Island Home-Educators newsletter, The South-Islander

The review of section 59 of the Crimes Act, the so-called "anti-smacking" bill, has become a confused and polarised debate about the merits of smacking versus the desire to curb domestic violence against children and families.
I believe the agenda behind the legislative change is much more threatening.
Enter the United Nations and the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) which has been ratified by New Zealand.
Our present government has zealously sought to implement UN agendas whenever possible into law and the repeal of section 59 is the latest example.
Others include mandatory sex-education, preferential and subsidised pre-school education, non-notification of parents in the case of a minor (their child) seeking an abortion, and the Civil Union Bill. UNCROC is a concerted attempt to undermine parental authority in the guise of protecting and nurturing children, and while some parts of this convention are laudable its general tenor is not supportive of parents. Some would call it indoctrination of our youth in the bid for state control and the implementation of all things anti-church, anti-Christian and anti-family. Present day New Zealand is ripe for the picking. As a nation we have abrogated our moral and Christian ethic in favour of values free clarification, hedonism and a moral relativity which makes us incapable of discerning who the enemy is, what tactics are being employed, or even able to summon up the necessary energy for the fight. We are inert and malleable - a precarious combination and one which governments relish in their bid to build a state in their own image. Children are the future of any nation so it follows ipso facto that they are the primary focus for intervention - good or bad.
The anti-smacking bill has never been about smacking children, it's about control. When the state assumes control beyond its mandate and infringes into parental authority, the state always kills. How else do you explain state-funded abortions, the coming euthanasia crisis, moral permissiveness, truancy, suicide and rampant youth? This is the environment in which the nanny-state excels, seeking to implement ever more restrictive, but morally permissive, laws in a bid to shore-up its authority while at the same time removing the rights of families who ascribe to a Judeo-Christian belief.
Sue Bradford has publicly stated her wish, which is also the desire of this government, that parents should not be allowed to correct their children. Can it be a coincidence that this is also the avowed goal of the UN in Article 19 of UNCROC?
It states; "State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."
While we may agree with some parts of this statement when it is used as a wedge to drive a state agenda to disempower parents it is pernicious to family life and when coupled with Articles 14 and 15 which promote the child's "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and "to freedom of association and peaceful assembly", you may begin to sens the insidiousness of any law directed at the reduction of parental authority.
Bradford is merely a pawn in the hands of this government ably abetted by the UN in its goal to implement policies which are aimed at the destruction of the family as we know it. This legislation must be vociferously rejected by all New Zealanders, it is a Trojan horse at the gates of the family castle.

by Pat Barrett (Father)