Saturday, March 31, 2007
"The bill has split the country, with opponents planning marches through New Zealand this week while supporters including Barnardos, Plunket, UNICEF and the Children's Commissioner created a flyer congratulating politicians voting for it." - By Irene Chapple - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 25 March 2007
Well, no, you're getting *stuff* wrong. When the country is split over an issue, it will be obvious - ie. fewer than 85% of New Zealanders will be opposed to such a bill.
Heck, I once considered journalism as a sweet job, but when I see the sad things these "reporters" are being forced to say, it makes me think again.
THE BILL HAS NOT SPLIT THE COUNTRY.
85% OF US SAY NO.
Just report ok, don't filter all your articles through the Greens and Labour's sieve before releasing them to the public.
"The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children" - Sue Bradford, Green MP - http://www.stuff.co.nz/4008760a11.html
"Parenting is for parents, not for the Government" - Heather Roy, Act MP, mother of 5 children - Wellington march speech - see www.youtube.com
"You know a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating but they don't want to see stressed and harassed parents called in by the Police because they smacked their child. So I think there's a debate to go on... I absolutely do not want to see smacking banned. I think you're trying to defy human nature." - Helen Clark, Prime Minister - Radio Rehma interview with Bob McCoskrie, late 2005
Helen Clark yesterday said some bill opponents were "demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children." - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00401.htm
NZPA quotes Steve Maharey using the standard Labour line of:
"It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children,"
The Labour spin is that smacking is already illegal, and that a defence in the Crimes Act is just something you can use in court. This is with all respect absolute bullshit and we know this with common sense.
If one refers to those against the Clark/Bradford smacking ban as "child-beaters", does that mean you believe 85% of New Zealanders are child beaters?
Also do people not realise that Sue Bradford's bill no longer repeals Section 59? It in fact retains it, enlarges the number of grounds on which you can use reasonable force, yet removes it for correctional purposes only.
the above two excerpts are from www.kiwiblog.co.nz
from a meeting with myself and Clayton Cosgrove, Friday 30 March, 07
"In Sue Bradford, we have discovered the quintessence of moral consistency. Here's someone who has argued tirlessly (and publicly) that abortion is an issue of individual concience. "A woman's right to choose" has been her insistent cry. But when women become parents, rather than parents-in-waiting, the astonishing Ms Bradford decrees they should have no choice at all.
Presumably, because a smack is a much greater threat to life of a very small human being than ever an abortion would be. Sue, you're an ethical genius!..."
Jim Hopkins, "It's Irrelevance, really", www.nzherald.co.nz, 5am, March 30, 2007
this from www.whaleoil.co.nz
I have really had it up to the proverbial with the antics of the Clark Section 59 Bill supporters. So here are a selection of thoughts and observations about the supporters.
First up I would love to see this question put at Question time.
To The Minister for Social Development, Do you believe that a ight smack in order to keep discipline is a good thing? and if not why not in light o your proclivity for such activities?
Now to focus on some of the more ridiculous supporters.
Take for instance one Sonny Thomas, that's him on the right, yeah, I can just imagine Sonny and Parekura bumping into each other (Sonny, I am your father!).
There is also a picture of him from the counter protest over at David Farrar's. That's also right, there he is carying a sign that is perhaps more of an indication that the fist is probably more about Sonny's habits than Family First's people. If we ever needed any more proof that Labour is right behind (so to speak) this bill then there it is right there. Members of their own Youth wing , who are actively and overtly homosexual and childless protesting something they would know almost nothing about. Sonny thomas by the way is the crook who doctored Young Labour's fake poll and then doctored it again when they got snapped by the VRWC cheating.
Then we have silly statements from the Labour Party from Helen Clark down. Idiotic things like'
"I cannot see how those who are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children can possibly then turn around and profess concern about what is happening to our children."
Like she would know anything about children anyway.
Michele Wilkinson-Smith, in her excellent article in the New Zealand Herald on Tuesday said;
"I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that—unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59 … I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: 'Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.' ";
She also pointed out there have been only about three cases where defendants have been acquitted on the basis of section 59, of course, the socialists neglect to observe that those people were acquitted by a jury of their peers based on all of the evidence presented. Now all of a sudden Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and the rest of the sorry lot supporting this legislation are effectively saying that those juries were wrong and as a result we are now going to remove the defense, oh which by the way is not a ban on smacking, really, wink, wink.
So just like the stupid policing of the areas arouns schools we have a massive waste of time and effort to supposedly stop, next to nobody using Section 59 as a defence against smacking and in the process criminalising the vast majority of parents….like that makes sense.
Whale Oil makes a damn fine point about the supporters of changing section 59:
If we ever needed any more proof that Labour is right behind (so to speak) this bill then there it is right there. Members of their own Youth wing , who are actively and overtly homosexual and childless protesting something they would know almost nothing about.
Lets get to the point. Helen Clark doesn't like children. Her front bench cannot contain many parents, let alone her party. Helen is not a supporter of discussing things when she can bully her MPs into voting the way she wants - how could we expect her to tell us to do the same wth our kids?
Many Labour bloggers (the prominent ones) also have no experience with kids, nor will ever have children. Why are they jumping up and down supporting this amendment?
CYFS and police are saying now that they WILL investigate ANY accusations of smacking made against parents. Parents will all be put into the same category as child molesters and violent parents. And you wonder why parents are pissed off.
If you read the leftie blogs look at how they tackle the issue. They call their opponents fundamentalists and child beaters. They go to protest and all they do is lampoon their opponents and not discuss the issue. I remember when the Exclusive Brethrens were villified in their own country by Clark. She called them every name under the sun because they spent their own money opposing them.
Helen is a woman who is willing to damage her own partys credibility so that she gets her own way. Her arrogance has led her to believe that she knows best and not 80% of the population.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Just a brief report here on my *meeting* with Clayton Cosgrove.
In his "caravan" parked at the side of the road in the middle of Rangiora (near Christchurch), Cosgrove didn't want to listen to me - he just wanted to tell me what the repeal of Section 59 meant for New Zealand. He said that all the repeal would do would be to remove the defence for parents who abused their children.
When I mentioned the fact that 80% of New Zealanders did not want Section 59 repealed, he told me: "Those 80% who hold your opinion are wrong".
His PA, when I refered to Bradford's bill as "the anti-discipline" bill said - "so are you saying that smacking is the only way to discipline your children?" An actual fact, by explicitly allowing force in some circumstances, only not for correction, the bill is exactly that, anti-Discipline.
Please note, quotes are from memory - not verbatim.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A) Listening to radio news yesterday on NewstalkZB there was a short piece on the Christchurch march. The only audio clip the radio played was of a guy who supported the bill. We heard nothing of the speeches of those opposed to the bill - the purpose of the march.
B) The Herald also had a news article, this one on the Wellington march. Rather than a picture showing the number of people attending, there was a picture showing Larry Baldock and again showing someone who supported the bill.
One thing I did like about the Herald photo was the irony that the supposed 'Pro-Violence' Larry Baldock appears calm and collected while the Anti-smacking 'Anti Violence' protester appears very aggressive. If this was the intention behind choosing this photo I will recant.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Helen Clark is now seeking to make Bradford's bill a "Government bill". This will mean that it will get the highest priority, enabling Labour and the Greens to rush the bill through Parliament - ignoring the massive outcry from the public.
If they do this, mark my words, it will be their downfall.
// "Public opinion says no - but she [Helen] says yes" - NZ Herald.
// "The childless Prime Minister thinks she knows better than the public" - Christine Rankin.
// "Some bill opponents are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children" - Helen Clark.
// "When 85 per cent of New Zealanders are opposed to this bill, we would be a pretty sick Opposition if we didn't do our best on their behalf," - Gerry Brownlee.
// Clark, Bradford, and their small bunch of out-spoken but dwindling bunch of supporters have said many times, "Smacking is illegal - it has been for 100 years". If this is the case, then why have my parents not been prosecuted - why is it only now that I learn that my family has been operating on the wrong side of the law since when Mum and Dad first smacked me?
//Ella Edginton said she was "disgusted" by the large number of "brainwashed children" brought along to "bulk up their numbers". Hmmm, the children I saw their didn't look as if they had been brainwashed Ella. Do children disgust you? You're just jealous that the Bradford supporters were few and far between. Only ONE Bradford supporter spoke up at the Christchurch march, and he didn't have anything intelligent to say.
New Zealand: Fellow Kiwis. When 15% is listened to, and 80% of our country's people's voices are ignored, we have to look around and see that something is wrong. The "Reds" are going down in 2008 - but until then, I am afraid, our *government* is nothing better than a Dictatorship. I am not going to keep quiet on this issue - I encourage you all to stand up - make your voice be heard.
I took some quotes and information from www.nzherald.co.nz
It's official, http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/audio2/28164434.wma the Section 59 Repeal is now a Government Bill. To be debated and passed whenever the Government wants. Yet, apparently http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/03/michael-cullen-may-withdraw-urgency-on.html> this bill is not important to the Labour, according to Michael Cullen a couple of days ago.
Helen Clark has also compared the outrage New Zealanders feel over this to the opposition over homosexual law reform and then the civil union bill. I think she hopes to continue her line that Christians are the only people outraged and are whipping everyone else into a frenzy.
The only problem with this type of comparison is that both the homosexual law reform and civil union bill only impacted directly upon a
minority of people. While as the Section 59 Repeal will impart directly upon the majority of New Zealanders. It's no longer one of those things that only affects people out there - it's going to affect all of us. Any parent who smacks will be committing a criminal offence.
The first two laws were also liberalisation laws, while as the Section 59 repeal is an authoritarian law, restricting freedom rather than
expanding it. Which goes to show how authoritarian laws will always follow liberalisation. Increased freedom, or license to do as what one
wants without regard for other people will lead to increased societal problems. Like our massive child abuse statistics that have followed the dramatic increase in single mothers following the liberalisation of divorce laws and societal relaxation of sexual norms. Therefore the
natural outcome is increased interference in everyone's lives. The beginning of the end.
So, any bets on what they are going to do? Pass it now and hope the electorate forgets, given time, or wait until all the furore has died
down and pass it then?
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 11:11 am
Press Release: Family Life International
New comprehensive US study shows yet another cause of child aggression that isn't smacking
A new study in the March/April 2007 of Child Development shows that the more time that children spend in centre-based care before kindergarten the more likely they are to display aggressive and disruptive behaviours during later stages of development.
The study, led by Jay Belsky, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues and Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck University of London, focused on 1364 children who had been tracked since birth as part of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
The study showed that teachers reported more frequent problem behaviours such as: argues a lot; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; and screams a lot from children who had been in day-care.
The study confirms the findings of research conducted in Canada last year which showed that children in day-care were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and research conducted in the UK in 2005 which showed that day-care was linked to "higher levels of aggression."
"This research adds to a large and growing body of research which shows that child aggression and disruptive behaviours are not linked to
smacking; contrary to the unscientific claims continually promoted by many supporters of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill" says Family Life International media spokesperson; Brendan Malone.
In today's edition of the NZ Herald the Prime Minister states that "New Zealand has it on its conscience that our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling."
"If the Government is really is so concerned with child welfare then why are they targeting loving physical discipline of children, when research clearly shows us that is has nothing to do with child violence?" says Mr Malone.
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they've done to their own
culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha
won't even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own
party's steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people
is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the
goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford's Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of
children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family
relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau,
separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of
"rights" determined by the political state without consulting the
parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat
"The best interests of the child" is the mantra of these
Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations...and that
means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents,
whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous
individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights?
The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents
(social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket,
Barnardos, doctors' offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need
protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are
the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford's Bill to criminalise you. Be very
afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Helen Clark: "It is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking" Supporters, including Miss Clark, say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and cannot be banned because it already is. National MPs accused Miss Clark of forcing her members to support the bill, and said she should have allowed them to exercise conscience votes free from party instructions. ACT MP Heather Roy said the Government was overriding the view of a majority of New Zealanders and had no right to tell her, a mother of five, how to raise her children.
Education Minister Steve Maharey said the bill did not ban smacking and did not tell parents anything. National MPs have managed to delay progress on the bill, and are expected to run more time-wasting tactics tomorrow.
The Smacking Bill is not being rushed through Parliament because NZ First is split on the issue, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said today.
A One News/Colmar Brunton poll found 83 per cent believe in smacking children while 15 per cent disagree.
A Research New Zealand poll found nearly three-quarters opposed the bill and believed it was unenforceable.
And here's my take on Labour dumping their attempt to put Bradford's bill into urgency ...
They thought they had a chance at rushing the bill - and thereby ignoring New Zealand's voice. When they realised that they were not going to get away with it, they came up with this surreal excuse: "We love New Zealand First - and so will not request urgency on this bill..." As far as I can see, this is without question a lie. Labour thought they could sneak this behind our backs - but are now tripping themselves up in the maze of lies and deceit they have made for themselves.
If one refers to those against the Clark/Bradford smacking ban as "child-beaters", does that mean you believe 85% of New Zealanders are child beaters?
Also do people not realise that Sue Bradford's bill no longer repeals Section 59? It in fact retains it, enlarges the number of grounds on which you can use reasonable force, yet removes it for correctional purposes only.So the entire website linked to is ir-relevant and fraudulent. It is asking people to support a bill which will not do what they claim - it will not repeal section 59.
this from http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006555a10.html
UPDATED REPORT: The Government has backed down on a bid to force Parliament into urgency for controversial anti-smacking legislation as the public backlash mounts.
REFERENDUM DEMANDED AS MAJORITY OPPOSE BILL
Leader of the House Michael Cullen yesterday told leaders of the Greens, the Maori Party, NZ First and United Future that the Government was withdrawing its request for urgency, which would have forced Parliament to sit until the legislation passed.
The decision was made as new research shows an overwhelming number of New Zealanders oppose Green MP Sue Bradford's bill outlawing physical punishment, which opponents say will open the floodgates to smacking prosecutions.
Cullen's office later said the bid for urgency was "causing too much angst" among the parties he had been having discussions with and it had been decided not to proceed.
visit the webpage http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006555a10.html to vote!
'Grant - February 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 am
I totally agree with you, Sue get your condesending mind out of our political system, I heard a quote this morning (22/02/07) on the radio saying that "she has never hit her children" well I have to say different.
When Sue was starting her life, working at the Auckland People's Center (1992ish), she would often bring her kids into work. When they ran wild (as they often did) she would smack them really hard where-ever her hand would make contact, not just the smacking but yell at them (even though they were less than one foot from her mouth).
Isnt it ironic that someone that shows such a dislike towards smacking is the one that was smacking her own kids??
Also her hate against the gay community runs really deep with her also, so anything that she says about how much she likes them is a load of bullshit too.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Colmar Brunton poll results:
National: 47 Labour: 36
New Zealand First: 2
United Future: 2
83% of New Zealanders surveyed believe it is ok to smack naughty kids.
19 year old girl at Nelson March: "I'm 19 - I was smacked - And I jolly well deserved it too. And it has not affected me any way - I am a law-abiding citizen"
Does this sound like an abused young person speaking? - Um, no!
Monday, 26 March 2007, 3:34 pm - Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Gerry Brownlee MP - National Party Shadow Leader Of The House
"The Green Party is doing the memory of Rod Donald a disservice if it entertains a Labour plan that would see the smacking ban become law before the end of the week," says National Party Shadow House Leader Gerry Brownlee.
Mr Brownlee is referring to the views of the late Green Party co-leader, who said during 2001 that 'urgency should only be used for matters which are genuinely urgent ... The only exception is that from time to time we have considered - and will continue to consider - approaches for extra sitting hours, and then only for one stage of a bill at a time'.
"The suggestion that the current group of Greens are considering supporting an urgency motion to railroad the smacking ban into place would appear to fly in the face of Mr Donald's deeply held view.
"It would appear that the Greens were once very sceptical about the use of urgency to clear the decks of a controversial issue. I'd invite them to rediscover their roots on urgency and the democratic process."
Mr Brownlee is also urging other parties to "firm up their views" against the urgency which Labour is seeking to secure.
"The public see this as an arrogant abuse of the parliamentary and democratic process. Any party that agrees to steamroll the process should expect the full force of a public backlash.
"This is now much bigger than the anti-smacking legislation. This is about a Labour Government that is so out of touch with New Zealanders that it will ride roughshod over their wishes because it is hurting politically."
Monday, March 26, 2007
Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered. -- Patrick Henry
"It's not important to Labour"
Now, that's not an exact quote, as I can't quite remember what Michael Cullen said, word for word as I was putting dinner on the table at the time, but it looks and sounds like back-pedalling to me.
A spokeperson for Michael Cullen has now confirmed that Labour is now longer seeking urgency on Repeal of S59.
Could it be that Labour has realised this whole issue is sinking them? Look at the
http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=364888&catid=3011poll results which http://www.stuff.co.nz/4006064a11.html Helen Clark attributes to John Key's "honeymoon period". Ha! More like Labour's disastrous trampling over the parents of NZ causing your average Labour voter to wake up and smell the coffee!
The latest political poll has seen support for Labour slip, while National holds steady nearly ten points ahead.
Now all we need is National to promise to repeal the repeal when they get into power, should Bradford's legislation be passed. Why are they not doing this? Trying to hold the higher moral ground on letting their MPs vote their conscience is not cutting it as it's not going to prevent the legislation from going ahead.
MP's consciences seem to be so out of step with the nation, that it would be best to do away with them altogether. That way parties would have to clearly articulate their positions on social issues, rather than allow party policy to be deathly silent on issues that can dramatically alter what it's like to live in NZ now, and in the future. Because social changes can take ten to twenty years at least for the full effects to be felt.
Anyway, any delay on the Repeal of S59 has to be good.
Prime Minister Helen Clark arrived back in New Zealand on Sunday evening from something of a diplomatic victory in the United States, but that appears to have had little pay off at home.
The government has lost ground in the latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll and National Party leader John Key is neck and neck with Clark as preferred prime minister.
Foreign policy loomed large last week as Clark sought to deepen New Zealand's dialogue with the US. But back home the political conversation has centred around the smacking bill which has whipped up a frenzy over just what force is acceptable in disciplining a child.
And with Taito Phillip Field flexing his muscles as an independent MP, lawmaking is becoming increasingly difficult for Labour.
So after an intense political month, National scored 46% as preferred party in the latest poll, well ahead of Labour on 37%.
The Greens are in third place on 7% followed by the Maori Party on 3%. New Zealand First, Act and United Future all scored 2%.
In comparison to February, Labour is the only party to have taken a hit - down two points - with little movement among the other parties.
While Clark met the world's power brokers this month, the National leader was more low key. But it does not seem to have done him any harm in the leadership stakes.
Clark is still preferred prime minister, but did not move off her 32% support since last month despite winning plaudits on the international stage.
Key is now not far behind on 29%, rising 2% since last month, and Winston Peters is the only other contender on 4%.
The poll questioned 1,000 eligible voters and has a margin of error of 3.1%.
NZPA | Monday, 26 March 2007
A new poll showing a majority of New Zealanders oppose Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill was released today ahead of another debate on it in Parliament on Wednesday.
The Research New Zealand poll, which questioned 497 people, found that nearly three-quarters opposed the bill and believed it was unenforceable.
Research New Zealand director Emanuel Kalafatelis said the poll showed 73 per cent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the bill's provisions.
It also showed that 72 per cent of those questioned thought the bill, if it was to be passed into law, would be unenforceable.
The bill is designed to change the Crimes Act and remove the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Opponents say it outlaws smacking, while supporters argue smacking is already illegal.
Mr Kalafatelis said the poll showed very little variation across age, gender, income, ethnicity and whether or not a household included children.
"The one difference that we found was that those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the anti-smacking legislation than those in older age groups," he said.
Meanwhile a coalition of Christian families is paying for a full-page advertisement in newspapers tomorrow calling for signatures to force a
referendum on the issue.
More than 50,000 signatures have been gathered so far, with 300,000 needed within the next 12 months before the Government would have to arrange a referendum.
Opponents plan to march on Parliament on Wednesday, when the committee stage debate on the bill is due to resume.
If the Government puts Parliament into urgency on the bill, it could pass its final third reading by the end of the week.
Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes backing the bill. A majority in Parliament is 61.
And I say: *Ms* Bradford, so you think you have just over 50% of 121 MPs do you? How's your concience *Ms* Bradford? Consistently, polls have shown 80% of Kiwis are opposed to your bill."
26 March 07
Anti-smacking campaigners have been dealt a fresh blow, with a new poll showing an overwhelming number of New Zealanders support parents' right to smack their naughty children.
The news comes as MPs prepare to once again debate the controversial bill banning smacking, and those against it are promising to keep turning up the heat.
A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children.
Just 15% disagreed with that, but supporters of Sue Bradford's bill say it is not aimed at those who lightly smack their child.
"The point of the Bradford bill is to enable the police to successfully prosecute serious child beaters," Prime Minister Helen Clark says.
It is already illegal to hit children but if prosecuted you have a legal defence that you were simply using reasonable force to correct their behaviour. The bill removes that defence because Bradford and others believe it was being wrongly used to get people off the hook for hitting their children with a riding crop or wooden sticks.
But there does not seem to be much faith that the bill will actually help those children. Just 18% say it will cut child abuse rates while 78% say it will do nothing.
With the bill to be debated again on Wednesday, the pressure is being racheted up.
A new advertising campaign against it kicks off on Tuesday. Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power are placing a full page newspaper advertisement to encourage people to sign a petition against the bill.
So far the petition has received more than 50,000 signatures. The aim is to hit 300,000 so the government is forced to hold a referendum.
More protests are also planned and one party is even threatening its own MPs with the boot next election if they do not vote against the controversial law.
The Colmar poll results are backed by a Research New Zealand survey, which showed that of the 497 people polled 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the anti-smacking bill.
The poll also showed that 72% of New Zealanders thought that if the bill were to be passed into law, it would be unenforceable.
The poll also found those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the legislation, with a quarter strongly supporting the bill.
Fourteen other polls conducted by various organisations show on average about 80% of people oppose the legislation.
A text message poll run by Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.
"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past two years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
"Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 83% of Kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the anti-smacking bill.
"The message is clear to our politicians," says McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research - namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."
Also on this page - this poll:
|Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?|
|I don't smack them anyway|
Date: 26 March 2007
Auckland 6am: The Destiny Church is planning another march on Parliament grounds, this time over the anti-smacking bill.
Brian Tamaki, from the church, says they'll be staging a mass rally in May in protest at yet another attempt by Government to undermine
traditional family values. The Destiny Church has protested about two other pieces of Government legislation, the Foreshore Bill in 2004 and the more recent Civil Union Bill.
Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill continues to gather controversy.
Today, locals in Feilding are marching against it while ructions have erupted in New Zealand First after president Dail Jones threatened to demote two MPs for voting for the bill.
New Zealand First is voting on conscience lines - with five MP's voting against it and two for it.
MP and former party president Doug Woolerton supports the bill, and says he's not going to be told how to vote.
And I say "Doug, who are you voting for? Yourself? Or New Zealand" For crying out loud, listen to the nation, you people in Parliament.
Posted at 8:33am on 26 Mar 2007
The head of the New Zealand First Party is warning two MPs that there will be consequences if they support an anti-smacking bill which would amend section 59 of the Crimes Act.
President Dail Jones says MPs, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, are acting irresponsibly by voting in support of the bill - disregarding a party remit that says the section 59 defence should stay.
Mr Woolerton says the president should not tell MPs what to do or think in a conscience vote.
But Mr Jones told Morning Report there is a party stance on the issue and MPs could be demoted if they choose to disregard it.
He says list MPs report to the New Zealand First board, which may decide not to reinstate an MP into Parliament if they vote against party policy.
The bill passed a Second Reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.
Opponents of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill have stepped up their campaign to stop it being passed.
Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power have re-launched a petition against the bill. To date the petition has more than 50,000 signatures. It is aiming to hit 300,000 by the end of the year.
Tomorrow full page advertisements will be taken out in four of the country's major newspapers.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says it is deplorable the bill is being rushed through Parliament under urgency. He says if 300,000 signatures are collected the Government will be forced to hold a referendum.
26.03.2007 By CARLY UDY
Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill has received an overwhelming thumbs down from Western Bay residents.
A special Bay of Plenty Times text message poll on Saturday asked readers Do you think smacking should be outlawed? A staggering 94.6 percent of the 354 respondents said "no", with only 5.4 per cent saying "yes".
The Government will this week decide whether they will attempt to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.
If they do so Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill could be passed into law by the end of the week.
A petition is being circulated nationwide as part of a push for a referendum on the controversial smacking issue.
Green MP Sue Bradford's bill to restrict the right to smack could be debated further this week, if the Government is successful in rushing it into urgency.
Protests today in both Nelson and Feilding have attracted hundreds who are angry the Government is telling them how to parent.
Former United Future MP Larry Baldock is spearheading the campaign against the bill, including full-page advertisements in major papers
Mr Baldock says it is important New Zealanders are given their say.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Friday, 23 March 2007, 9:29 am
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
United Future leader Peter Dunne says his party will not support Sue Bradford's smacking Bill being rushed through Parliament under urgency.
"Although United Future MPs are exercising a conscience vote on the Bill, we will vote as a party to oppose any move for urgency.
"The Bradford Bill is a Member's Bill and should be treated as such.
"It should not be rushed through under urgency, just to get the issue out of the way," he says.
Mr Dunne says that United Future MPs will continue to have a split vote on the Bill itself.
"We believe very strongly in the right of individual MPs to exercise a conscience vote.
"We deplore Labour's decision not to let its MPs do so on this Bill, and call on the Labour caucus to reverse that decision," he says.
However, Mr Dunne rejects calls for United Future to bloc vote against the Bill if it proceeds under urgency.
"It would be the height of hypocrisy, to say the least, to be critical of Labour not allowing its MPs to have a conscience vote, and then to withdraw our MPs' right to a conscience vote, just because we disagreed with the procedural tactics being followed," he says.
By EVAN HARDING - Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 24 March 2007
Dianne Woodward is all fired up. So much so, the mother-of-four is organising a protest march against the anti-smacking bill in Feilding on Monday.
The bill, brought by list MP Sue Bradford, is set to be passed in Parliament next week, barring a backtrack by a number of MPs.
Mrs Woodward believes parents should have the right to smack their children to "correct and protect", as she did on occasion.
She is riled because the Government is extinguishing that right.
When hearing the bill may be passed with urgency in Parliament, she said
she got on the phones to garner support for the Monday protest march
which starts at noon from the Feilding clocktower.
"The march is to let the Labour Government know we will not be dictated to on how to raise our children. I don't care if people agree or disagree with smacking, but let's not be dictated to," she said.
"I don't want to be criminalised for smacking my children if they need protecting, or their behaviour needs correcting.
"Time-out might work for one child, and they may never need a smack, but don't take away our right to smack if we have to in order to protect and correct."
Her four boys are aged from six to 18. It's the future parents that she feels for.
"God help New Zealand if this bill gets through. Our children are our future generation and mums matter heaps. Don't upset the hand that rocks the cradle."
Child abusers were not people that lightly smacked their children to curb errant behaviour, she said.
"Will criminalising adults who smack children ever stop child abuse for our poor defenceless babies? I think not.
"I have talked to lots of young people and asked them if they were smacked as kids, did they deserve it, and did they get over it. They answered yes to the whole lot."
"I am only one mum but if the march makes a difference I will do it. I have probably never been more passionate about anything in my whole life."
6:50PM Friday March 23, 2007
The Government may face an uphill battle in attempting to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.
Leader of the House Michael Cullen yesterday said the Government had not decided whether it would move urgency, which could see Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill passed into law next week.
Ms Bradford said the Government had sought its support for an urgency motion which requires a majority.
But the Government would still need others to back the move before it could take urgency to pass the bill through its remaining stages.
It would need the Maori Party, which supports Ms Bradford's bill, along with the six Green MPs, plus at least one other -- one of the two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill -- to get the 61 votes it needs to bring in urgency next week.
NZ First deputy leader Peter Brown said his party would discuss the issue at its caucus meeting on Tuesday.
Procedural matters such as for an urgency motion were usually issues for the caucus as a whole to decide but Mr Brown told NZPA he would not pre-empt any of the discussion by MPs ahead of the Tuesday caucus or rule out the possibility of a free vote on this issue.
"We're split on the bill itself, whether that's reflected in the urgency motion I don't know."
Mr Brown said he had been contacted by Dr Cullen last Friday afternoon and received a follow-up letter asking NZ First to consider the urgency motion.
He said one NZ First had already raised whether it was appropriate to have an urgency motion on a member's bill.
The Maori Party said it would also discuss the issue at its caucus meeting on Tuesday.
National leader John Key said Labour was acting arrogantly and was showing contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process.
ACT's whip Heather Roy also said that to put Parliament into urgency to pass the bill would be unacceptable and anti-democratic.
It is already illegal to hit children but Ms Bradford's bill will remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children.
Opponents of the bill say it will outlaw smacking.
National managed to delay the bill at its committee stage, meaning that under normal parliamentary processes it would not face its third reading until late April or even May.
Debate on the bill's committee stage, when MPs can attempt to insert amendments, recommences on Wednesday and a protest is being staged that day against the bill.
Under urgency the bill could proceed to its third reading and be passed into law straight after its committee stage concluded.
Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki said he intended to stage a "mass gathering" at Parliament Grounds on Wednesday, May 2, to coincide with the final reading of the bill, should it carry over from Wednesday's session.