Friday, February 08, 2008

Anti-smack minister smacked own kids

This from news.com.au


THE minister whose disgraced department broke up a family because a grandmother smacked her grandson has admitted he smacks his own children.

The startling admission by embattled Community Services Minister Kevin Greene also puts the father of six in direct conflict with his own department's rule, which is that children should never be smacked.

The child protection sector is in an uproar following yesterday's revelation by The Daily Telegraph that children had been removed from their grandparents' home because the grandmother smacked her six-year-old grandson for playing in a stormwater drain.

They were official DOCS carers and had looked after the three brothers and sister several times in the past six years.

Despite DOCS listing smacking as a "risk of harm" offence that must be reported, Mr Greene said spanking could have its place.

"My wife and I have raised six children together. Three are now adults, two are in their late teens and our youngest is 12," he said.

"There were times when our judgment has been that it was appropriate to smack the children. But we've moved past those days of toddler tantrums and disobedient kids."

Mr Greene also said he supported the law in NSW that allows smacking but outlaws excessive physical punishment.

"While discipline is a personal judgement for parents, one thing is paramount – the child's health and safety should never be threatened by the course of action parents take."

Foster care workers yesterday were asking how DOCS can punish foster carers for doing something their own minister has condoned.

"It puts a lot of confusion in carers' minds when he is saying, 'Do as I say, not as I do'," Foster Care Association president Mary-Jane Beach said.

"Some carers would agree that an occasional smack on the bottom doesn't hurt and they find the department's no smacking stipulation difficult. Why would you give a mixed message like that?"

The woman whose grandchildren have been taken away from her was furious at the apparent contradiction.

"It is like the rich and the poor; you have one set of rules for one and one for another," Catherine (not her real name) said.

"It was just to teach our grandson about getting down the drain.

"If it's good for him (Greene) why isn't it good enough for the other parents and grandparents who only do it when a child mucks up?"

The fresh controversy comes amid calls to elevate the Community Services – currently a junior portfolio – to a senior Cabinet position.

Mr Greene is a first-time minister accused of being out of his depth in his handling of recent child death cases.

Andrew McCallum, from the Association of Children Welfare Agencies, said DOCS was not given enough importance by the Government.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Children's Commissioner - "Smacking = Violence = Criminals"

Lucyna at NZ Conservative comments on Cindy Kiro's most recent press release.

Cindy Kiro has an article in today's Dominion Post that draws a rather long bow. She asserts that violence causes violence and implies that smacking is violence, therefore smacking creates violent individuals of the type that she has talked to in prison.

What I find even more disturbing than her tightly held belief that smacking is violence, is the statement that seems to come out of nowhere like a tourette's expletive - "Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them."

What the!!!

Who is calling for the right to "punch a child in the head"???

Is Cindy on some kind of memory lane trip at this point where she remembers something horrible from her own childhood?

By putting that statement in her article, Cindy Kiro is directly implying that all of us who believe we need to be able to physically discipline our children (should it become necessary) and not be criminalised are potentially out of control child murderers that need to be dobbed in by our friends and neighbours.

Just what type of childhood did Cindy Kiro have?

Click here to read the article

Saturday, February 02, 2008

ACT Pushes Anti-Smacking Referendum

Rodney Hide & Heather Roy
Saturday 2 February 2008
Crime & Justice

ACT New Zealand Leader Rodney Hide and Deputy Leader Heather Roy have taken out a half page advertisement in tomorrow's 'Sunday Star Times', urging New Zealanders to sign a petition calling for a Citizen's Initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law passed by both National and Labour last year.

"We believe that New Zealanders should have their say on this controversial law, not just politicians," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.

"A Citizen's Initiated Referendum will enable New Zealanders to tell politicians what they think. The organisers of the petition have done a great job getting signatures, and people are keen to sign - 280,000 signatures have been collected so far, but the organisers need 300,000 by the end of February to ensure a referendum.

"That's why we have pitched in; it's vital that New Zealanders get to have a say. ACT was the only Party that voted against the anti-smacking law - which equates good parents who smack their children with child abusers and criminalises them.

"That's wrong; ACT believes that parents should be able to choose the best method of raising their children and teaching them right from wrong.

"National and Labour passed the anti-smacking Bill against the wishes of 80 percent of New Zealanders. We believe it should be up to New Zealanders to choose whether they want to make smacking a criminal offence. It's time they had a say.

"We urge New Zealanders to sign the petition, which calls for a referendum on this law. Copy the petition and get your friends and colleagues to sign it too - that way we can ensure that the voices of the people of New Zealand can be heard," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.

ENDS

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Print it, sign it, send it.

One month to go

93% of the signatures required already collected

Only 20,000 to go

It's that close!

Please help us 'cross the line' in style!

The organisers of the two petitions demanding a Referendum on both the anti-smacking law and the need to target the real causes of child abuse need to deliver 300,000 signatures on BOTH petitions to Parliament by Feb 29 (last day of Feb).

Family First wants to help them achieve that target, and to make this issue not only the political issue of 2007 but also of 2008!

Would you consider :

1. Printing off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Getting as many signatures as you can on both petitions

3. Sending them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible - but at the latest by Feb 22. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

We believe the politicians need to listen to the voice of the NZ public on this issue.


Families broken up to meet bureaucratic targets

The baby snatchers: Judge orders social workers to hand back newborn child taken from hospital at 4am

A newborn baby was illegally snatched from its mother by social workers in the early hours of yesterday morning.

Officials claimed the 18-year-old mother was unfit to care for the child because of mental health problems.

But hours later a High Court judge ordered the infant to be returned immediately, saying the social workers had acted beyond their powers.

Mr Justice Munby told the officials that they "should have known better".

The troubling case follows complaints from parents that social workers have taken their children for adoption without good reason, and suggestions that families are being broken up to meet bureaucratic targets.

Last night campaigners welcomed the ruling and praised the mother's lawyers for their prompt action to reunite the baby with its mother.

The child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was born healthy at 2am yesterday.

Later Ian Wise, appearing for the mother, referred to as "G", told the High Court in London that the child was taken from her at about 4am without her consent.

The child was removed after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth plan" prepared by local authority social services.

The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood and suffers from mental health problems, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers...

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Child Abuse is not funny

Letter sent to the Editor of the Press, 30 Jan 08


Dear Sir,

What a disgusting, misleading cartoon was published in the editorial on Tuesday, the 29th of January.
I was appalled that Mike Moreu could so terribly misrepresent the truth and that it could be accepted. Phrases like:

"Abuse has it's use" and, "Dad beat me but my shrink says I'm okay," not only distort what Family First stands for, but make fun of child abuse.
To put Bob Mc Croskrie in the same box as child abusers is ridiculous. He was the one who came up with a five-point action plan to get rid of child abuse.
Why is it that the minority's view on this issue should get published, but the majority's view is left out?
New Zealand: Toleration and Freedom of Speech. Why are we only hearing the minority?
Come on! Let's stand up for what we really believe.

Yours Sincerely, Lydia

----------------------------------------------

Absolutely spot on.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Please vote in this poll

TV3 has a poll on the following question:

Should there be a referendum on the anti-smacking bill?

For the sake of democracy, please take 30 seconds to have your say in this poll.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx

Dad charged with assault for flicking son's ear

We said it would happen.  John Key, now is the time for a statement on the referendum.

from www.newstalkzb.co.nz 29/01/2008 11:20:02

A Christchurch father has been charged with assault after admitting he flicked his son's ear for misbehaving.

Local musician Jimmy Mason says he flicked the three-year-old to reprimand him for riding his bike dangerously near a busy one-way road on the Bridge of Remembrance, in the central city.

Inspector Garry Knowles says after investigating the case, police have decided to charge the man with two counts of assault on a child. He will appear in court on February 12.

Mr Knowles believes the charges would have been laid even if last year's repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, known as the anti-smacking law, had not gone through.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Here is the latest count on the petition calling for a referendum on the anti smacking law

signature counter
only 23000 away from target!!
This count does not include the signatures collected over the past weekend.
just click it, print it, sign it, send it !!

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Smacking Law Referendum Likely

David Farrar at Kiwiblog reports...

The SST reports that it looks likely that opponents of the anti-smacking law will gain the 300,000 signatures they need to trigger a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

They have to do it by 1 March 2008. Now just because on paper they have over 10% of the eligible voters, doesn't mean they automatically succeed. A proportion of the signatures are always found to be invalid.

The Government will have a dilemma over the timing of any referendum. The Clerk of the House has two months, or until the end of April to determine the the petition has enough signatures. Then the Government sets a date within 12 months.

Now the most logical thing to do is include it with the general election, which will be only six months off.  But Labour may not want people voting on the anti-smacking law at the same time as they vote for a party. So they may try to hold the referendum earlier.

But this will cost significantly more money to have it as a separate election.  So Labour would be accused of wasting taxpayer money for its own electoral purposes.  The ballpark estimate is this increases the cost from around $1.5 million to $10 million.  Will the Govt has a convincing reasons for spending an extra $8.5 million rather than just have the referendum with the election?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Anti-smacking law likely to come under more heavy fire this year

This from the Gisborne Herald

Politicians look like being confronted, challenged and possibly embarrassed by the prospect of a referendum on the anti-smacking law later this year, almost certainly held in tandem with the next election.

Opponents of the controversial legislation initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford are now close to the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a citizen's initiated referenda.

Almost 5000 signatures were obtained last weekend, including 1000 at the World Cup of Motorsport event at Taupo, 720 at a "blues, brews and barbecues" event in Hastings and other tallies from A&P Shows.

The current total of almost 268,000 represents a gain of 43,000 in the past two months, suggesting no diminution of public feeling on the issue.

Principal organiser Larry Baldock told The Gisborne Herald: "We've got to keep it moving, but we're pretty confident we'll be able to see this through to a referendum."

Two petitions are being canvassed with a deadline of February 28 to obtain the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered electors and present them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The first -- "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? -- is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.

The second, in Mr Baldock's name, is "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"

As a former United Future MP Mr Baldock has been the public face of the campaign since the petitions began circulating a year ago, with strong support from volunteers, organised groups and churches.

The terms for organising and conducting Citizen's Initiated Referenda (CIR) are defined by legislation enacted by the Bolger administration in 1993, since when only two petitions have reached the point of forcing a plebiscite.

Interesting stuff . . . but even a referendum result is not binding on the Government.

_________________________________________________________________________
If you haven't signed this petition then you need to, go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html and print it sign it and send it. oh and get your mates to sign it too !!

Smack in the middle of hysteria

The Anti smacking debate is growing in Australia with the aussie Govt giving an anti smacking lobby group 2.5 million Australian dollars.


This is from the Sydney Morning Herald


At the gym one day during the holidays a mother was struggling with a shrieking toddler. The child had worked himself into hysteria and the sounds of his distress gave new meaning to "piercing" for those of us caught in the maelstrom. In the shower at first I thought I was hearing a hurricane ripping off a steel roof. Apart from prompting a flash of admiration for such energy and stamina from so small a set of lungs, the sound was deeply disturbing.

It continued for five or 10 minutes. All over the gym, from the pool to the women's changing room, concerned gym-goers tiptoed towards the source of the sound to determine the cause of distress, retreating in embarrassment when they saw the mother, sitting passively in the face of such fury.

She seemed calm, if hunkered down, not remonstrating with the child, in fact scarcely acknowledging his drama, just unemotionally absorbing the noise at close quarters. Perhaps she was deaf.

On top of the incivility of subjecting others to the noise in a not particularly child-friendly establishment, her zen-like refusal to even try to dim the din was annoying.

Everyone else was powerless to control the volume and was waiting for her to do her job, or at least to remove the child to a place where his noise would not be amplified by porcelain-tiled walls.

What was her plan? Was she so exhausted by a difficult child that she could only cope by remaining silent? Or was she merely exercising a modern form of permissive parenting?

It was obviously not what the child wanted - he needed a reaction to all his effort, though after a while he was beyond reason. It can't have been what the mother wanted, and it sure wasn't what anyone else in the gym wanted.

People wanted to reach out and help the wretched woman and her poor child, but were at a loss.

How do you tell a women her child needs a good smack?

Remembering the bossy older women who used to exasperate my friends and me when our children were younger by offering unsolicited snarky advice about our tots' perceived public misbehaviour, I hesitate before casting judgment on other mothers. We even started a joke support group, "Mothers Against Meanies" (MAM) to get the nosey-parkers to back off.

But, seriously, what happened to discipline? Little in the history of parenting has ever proven as effective as a sharp rebuke or, dare I say it, a swift smack on the bottom that acts as an instant "reboot" of a naughty child.

Some people will never agree with corporal punishment. But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't control their kids; it's just more complicated. For their own sake as much as for the children, not to mention the rest of society, they should at least try.

In the ABC-TV program The Madness of Modern Families, on Tuesday night, a British father described meal-times in his child-led household: "There's been times when we've cooked a healthy meal and plonked it down in front of the children and then seen them eat nothing and worry they're going to wake up in the night, and think it'd be easier to cook them another meal now."

That's not good parenting. It's a recipe for monsters.

This reluctance by well-meaning modern parents to enforce fair, firm, quickly administered discipline is creating havoc with the generation into which infamous Melbourne party planner Corey Delaney (aka Worthington) was born.

The 16-year-old with the pierced nipple and trademark yellow sunglasses achieved international notoriety when he threw an out-of-control party while his parents were away, attracting 500 teenagers and the police riot squad.

He doesn't seem a bad kid, and was at least trying to sweep up the mess the next day when TV cameras descended. His refusal to be intimidated by A Current Affair's school-marmish interviewer was commendable. It's his ineffectual parents, Jo and Steve Delaney, who are the problem, with their posturing TV interviews, "open letter" to newspapers and utter inability to command their son's respect.

"He's devastated," Jo Delaney told one program while her son was on a rival channel boasting about "the best party ever".

Public opinion on the internet advocates a firmer approach. The website www.slapcorey.com, has an image of the spotty, barechested teen, and a hand you can click to administer the punishment. By yesterday afternoon almost 650,000 people had indulged.

The Delaneys seem typical of a subset of laissez-faire baby-boomer parents who haven't learned to say "No".

Data from a new NSW Government parent helpline shows a crisis in parental confidence, with 20 per cent of calls from parents tearing out their hair about how to discipline their unruly offspring. And a study last year from the Vanderbilt Medical Centre in Tennessee found a third of parents believe their discipline methods are "never" or only "sometimes effective".

Perhaps working parents try to outsource discipline and training of their children to nannies and other carers in the mistaken hope that family time will be calm. Perhaps step-parents are reluctant to mete out discipline, concerned the child will not recognise their authority.

Meanwhile the anti-smacking lobby is flexing its muscles, with the Australian Childhood Foundation pushing for a national law, following New Zealand, to prevent parents using corporal punishment. The Federal Government last year even gave them $2.5 million to fund a campaign warning parents not to smack.

The idea is that banning smacking in the home reduces violence in society. But common sense and the facts say the opposite, that lax parenting leads to more aggressive children.

The Norwegian bullying expert and psychology professor Dan Olweus has shown that "overly permissive parenting" actually creates bullies. No one wants to go back to an era in which children were seen and not heard, or belted when they were bad. There is plenty to admire about today's parents, who are involved and interested in their children's lives, and treat them with respect.

But there is a sensible middle ground, in which a firm "No", even the odd smack, or raised voice, does not make you a bad parent. At the very least, if permissive parents want to give their misbehaving children free rein, could they please do it in the privacy of their own homes. Preferably with soundproofing.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out.

Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out.

This from the NZ Herald

A South Auckland foster care group says a quarter of its foster parents have quit because of the "anti-smacking" law passed last year.

South Auckland Caregivers Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed caregivers to use reasonable force to "correct" children, had made a chronic shortage worse.

"A quarter of our members have left because of section 59. I could rattle off about 10 in South Auckland. I know of many, many caregivers who have been longstanding caregivers but won't do caregiving any more. It's too dangerous.

"These kids are really hard. They just don't care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?"

Child, Youth and Family Services has faced mounting problems finding foster parents in recent years, as the number of children in care has grown by 18 per cent in the past five years to 5049, while the number of single-income families with one parent available at home for caregiving has shrunk.

However, other foster care groups said the smacking law was not a factor for their members.

Both Carolyn Hill, who chairs the national Family and Foster Care Federation, and Foster Care Auckland chairman Byron Perkins said they had not heard of any caregiver leaving because of the law change.

"People are leaving because they are dissatisfied with CYFS," Mr Perkins said. "It comes down to the whole area of professionalism and payments because both couples have to go to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage."

A CYFS survey published in November found that 71 per cent of its mainly-female primary caregivers now work outside the home - 20 per cent fulltime and 51 per cent part-time. Although 80 per cent of its mainly-male secondary caregivers have paid work, most are low-paid. Only 46 per cent earn more than $35,000 a year.

Three-quarters said the foster care allowance of $124 to $174 a week per child depending on the child's age did not cover all their costs such as transporting the children to school and other activities.

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren convener Di Vivian said many grandparents were "frightened" by the new law, but she did not know of any who had given up caring for their grandchildren because of it.

A CYFS spokeswoman said the repeal of section 59 made no difference to the service's long-standing policy against any "physical discipline".

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Australian Anti-Smacking Campaign

From the Daily Telegraph, Australia - 19 Jan 08

...Data from the new Parent Line shows discipline far outranks other concerns about children, with nearly 20 per cent of calls from mums or dads begging for advice on how to handle their toddler or troubled teen.

Experts [1] say mixed messages are leaving parents uncertain how to punish their children in a politically correct age when smacking is considered wrong. [2]

``Parents feel smacking doesn't work [3] and prefer not to use physical punishment, but are not sure what to put in its place,'' said Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF), which is behind a push for a national anti-smacking law.

``We need to set a community standard that, under law, children can't be hurt [4] that is the kid of law we think should be introduced that would clarify it for parents,'' Mr Tucci said...

-----------------------------

Comments
1. So-called "experts" are not the people to turn to for advice on raising children.

2.
Who says smacking is wrong? - I can absolutely guarantee you that the attitude to smacking in Australia will be very close to that of New Zealand.  In New Zealand, when the Government pushed through the anti-democratic and draconian Anti-Smacking bill, 83% of the population were opposed to the law change.

3.
Well of course some parents feel that smacking doesn't work, however Joe Tucci is grossly misrepresenting the truth here.

4.
All children get hurt from time to time as they grow up.  Whether if it's knocking their head on the side of the dresser, or getting a quick slap on the bottom for something they've done wrong.

In Summary,
These "anti-smacking" lobbyists consistently ignore the rights of the majority of the population.  They push ahead with their agenda for social change - as Sue Bradford (introduced the Anti-Smacking bill to NZ Parliament) says "We've got to change this culture of violence".  They twist words and use emotive language to strengthen their argument, for instance, describing a loving smack as a beating.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Unity For Liberty's response to police report on smacking cases

This is Unity For Liberty's response to the police report on smacking which came out last year.
____________________________________________

Please do not be fooled by the recent Police review and the media. It has been reported that the court has not been inundated with cases so the law is working. This is not the full story.
Firstly, they claim there has only been 15 investigations, but we are almost averaging one story a week from one table. The report also goes on to say that ?an absence of a notification on a Police file does not necessarily mean that no notification was made.?

I was speaking to a prominent Party leader's secretary, she made this comment "The police are required to investigate all reports", this is a classic case of "If we ask the wrong questions we will arrive at the wrong answer". Read on

There is a very disturbing trend that is developing in this country, this law, rather than being tested in the courts of the land, appears that it is being enforced by fear and intimidation from our Police Force. Recently a Grandmother was threatened with arrest just for restraining a 2 yr old from running on the road. The Officer made it very clear "I will let you off this time but next time I will arrest you". But there's more, this will test the above Police review figures. When the officer moved on, another woman (unsure if she was a mum or gran) come up and said, "They aren't kidding, they escorted me to the Police Station and interviewed me for the same thing last week."

We have since been made aware of more similar stories, they have been forwarded to Bob McCoskrie at Family First, please forward all stories to Bob, for him protection of the victim is more important than the story, he is a trusted person.

The secretary above, like the rest of us, assumed the police will only be investigating reported cases, who would have thought they themselves would become proactive and start intimidating grandmothers, and this was INCONSEQUENTIAL.

A solo mum, also a New Zealand citizen, who has not broken any law, the police chose to investigate her history through social services and then chose to challenge her parenting skills. She then went to complain to her local MP about her treatment, only to receive a phone call from the Police District Commander, "don't bother wasting the MP's time".

We pay out taxes to be protected by our police, now innocent New Zealanders are being attacked.

Unity for Liberty will be presenting our own review assessed from the trail of devastation that is being left behind from this Bad Law.

Let's collect these signatures and keep the politicians honest,

_______________________________________________
Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz to print of the petition form, sign it and send it to ,

C/o CIR
P.O. Box 9228
Greerton, Tauranga

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Don't Vote Labour: the poem

Christchurch marched in driving rain,
Three thousand protests were in vain,
"Protect parental rights!", they cried.
"We're protecting children", Labour lied.

"Freedom of Speech", Labour said,
They're trying to get our votes instead.
"Make them pay!" they declared.
With Mugabe they're compared.

"They've got too much freedom", Labour thinks,
"What else can we ban? Can't ban the drinks,
Helen didn't sleep because of the show,
So fireworks are the next to go!"

That's right Labour! We don't mind
We know you're trying to be kind,
Get rid of all our fireworks nights,
Take our freedom, ignore our rights.

"Close down SIT? No problems at all,
Old Tim Shadbolt's a bit of a fool.
Raise the taxes! Increase the rates!
We know that's what our country hates."

Let Labour in again? It's not wise,
They're trying to control our lives.
The only thing that can be done,
Is get them out and have some fun.

- by a free-thinking 16 year old who refuses to obey the Electoral Finance Act and put her name and address on this "Election Advertisment"

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father

Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.

This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.

As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.

Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad's face, and heard him say "wait Seth, we have to look after Zach". Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.

An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.

One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad's head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?...

--------------------------------

Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):

Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be "marched down to the slammer."

Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.

from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz

Cindy Kiro, "Children's Commissioner":

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son's ear.

"The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly."

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz

--------------------------------

Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro's role as "children's commissioner" was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.

Jimmy Mason:

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

"[The police officers] didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater. There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

from http://www.stuff.co.nz

--------------------------------

Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.

Father warned for disciplining boy, 3

By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008

A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son's ear in public as a reprimand.

Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.

The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.

"Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn't realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness," Mason said.

"So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one," Mason said.

A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.

"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said.

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.

"When I say 'stop' to the kids they have got to stop," he said. "I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.

"They didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater.

"There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.

Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.

"It says every parent is justified in using force if it's reasonable in the circumstances," he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was "inconsequential" and not in the public interest to prosecute.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.

"It just seems totally over the top," he said. "That's the problem with this law, it's lost the common-sense element. It's a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused."

A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be "inconsequential" and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Teenager Collecting Signatures Against Bradford Law Assaulted

Press Release - Unity for Liberty - 4 January 2008

Unity for Liberty leader, Craig Hill, is stunned with the behavior of an
opponent to the petition against the Sue Bradford anti-smacking law.

Mr Hill's 18 year old daughter was pushed to the ground by a woman who
was trying to destroy the petition forms that had been signed at a
shopping centre in Pukekohe this afternoon.

An assault complaint has been laid to the Police.

"It seems ironic that people who claim they are against abuse have no
problems assaulting a teenage girl," says Mr Hill. "They seem unable to
differentiate the difference between a smack and child abuse, and they
also have no problem using unreasonable force on other people."

Unity for Liberty has collectors throughout NZ collecting signatures
demanding a Referendum against Bradford's anti-smacking bill and
demanding that the politicians tackle the real causes of child abuse.

Over 250,000 signatures have been collected already, and Mr Hill's
daughter has been collecting signatures every weekend over the past 5
months and during the holiday period.

Click here for the News report on this case

Click here for comments from the nzconservative blog

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

250,000 Signatures Collected

"This is a message to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and all those who thought they could ignore good decent Mum’s and Dad’s in this country who are trying to do their best with the most important job in the world. No Helen, it’s not being Prime Minister, it is raising good kids."

"The referendum is coming which will allow every New Zealander to have their say. If the PM, Sue Bradford and all the MP’s who supported it had any respect for democracy they would have called for the referendum themselves!"

Click here for the Press Release from Larry Baldock

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Larry Baldock & Bradford on Radio NZ

Larry comments on the false "3 Month Review" issued by the Police recently. Bradford attempts to defend the flawed piece of legislation with her name on it. Larry brings up the salient question "if there have been no prosecutions - then what is the point of the law?"

The below clip is six minutes long and well worth a listen.

Right click here and choose "save" to download the MP3 file

Audio from: www.radionz.co.nz

Friday, December 21, 2007

Spain quick to follow NZ on anti-parental-authority law

This from www.abc.net.au | 21 Dec 07

The Spanish Congress has passed a bill that bans parents from smacking their children.

Spanish law had allowed parents to 'reasonably and moderately correct their children'.

But the Socialist government has voted to delete that clause in order to remove any ambiguity.

The conservative opposition party voted against the change on the grounds that it would leave parents powerless to discipline their children.

Of Europe's 46 member states, 16 have already banned smacking at school and in the home.

Police Report out on "anti-smacking" law

The long awaited police review of the "anti-smacking" law is out.

There has been a slight increase in smacking cases.

Here is their graph.

Table 1




Events

Volume before Amendment

Volume after Amendment

Increase in volume of events

"Smacking"

3

3

0

"Minor acts of physical discipline"

10

12

2

Other child assault

82

96

14

Total

95

111

16

_________________________________________________________

Please read the report here http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/section-59-activity-review/

Comment to come later.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Smacking referendum bid nears goal

Great to finally see the media doing it's job, reporting on the massive Nation-wide effort of people collecting signatures on the petition.

Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 15 December 2007

More than 240,000 people have signed a petition calling for anti-smacking legislation to be repealed. A steady flow of people added their names to the list in Palmerston North yesterday.

Future New Zealand political party co- leader Larry Baldock and his wife Barbara set up a stand near The Plaza about 11.15am.

By 3.30pm they had more than 240 extra signatures.

The petition needs 300,000 signatures by March 1 if the issue is to be voted on at the next general election in 2008, Mr Baldock said.

The campaign lost momentum after Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial child discipline bill, which outlaws physical punishment, passed into law last winter.

However, Mr Baldock said petition volunteers' spirits have picked up and they have their sights set on the 300,000 target to force a non-binding citizens' initiated referendum.

"We're not interested in trying to convince people," Mr Baldock said yesterday.

"Most people are upset - they didn't want [the law], but [Parliament] went ahead and did it anyway."

The law wastes police resources and makes good parents nervous, Mr Baldock said.

Palmerston North man Rhys Rossiter said he signed the petition because the law "criminalises parents for doing what they do".

The law also encourages people to nark on parents who discipline their children, he said.

"There's a difference between beating a kid and disciplining a kid."

The law has done nothing to stop child abuse, he said.

New Zealand has the third highest rate among developed nations of child deaths due to maltreatment. On average our adults kill 1.2 children per 100,000 each year.

The petition has two questions:

  • Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
  • Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Petition calls for repeal of Bradford's Bill

www.times-age.co.nz | 14.12.2007 | By Gerald Ford

Opponents of Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial "anti-smacking bill" enacted this year were collecting signatures in Masterton yesterday on a petition calling for its repeal.

Two petitions were presented, calling for referenda on two questions: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

Larry Baldock, the former United Future MP, who is presenting the second petition, said yesterday at 240,000 they were close to the 300,000 needed for a referendum...

Click here to read the rest of the article

Friday, December 14, 2007

Latest study unreliable

www.stuff.co.nz | Friday, 14 December 2007 reports...

"Three out of four young parents physically discipline their children - and one in eight have seriously assaulted them - a Christchurch study reveals."

"The study, completed before smacking was outlawed, asked 155 parents under 25 how they acted towards their children in the previous 12 months, taking into account punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking.

Researchers concluded the use of child physical punishment was likely to be common among young parents and up to 12 per cent engaged in "harsh or abusive treatment".

Lead researcher Canterbury University Associate Professor Lianne Woodward said social and family background had a big influence on the parents' use of physical punishment..."
Click here to read the rest of the article

------------------------------------------------

155 parents were surveyed says the Newspaper report. This "research" cannot be taken seriously, as it cannot posssibly be representative of the population of Christchurch, let-alone the rest of New Zealand. Look how fast Kiro is to jump at it and say "see, we've got to change". The study was done prior to the bill passing into law, so quite apart from anything else, the results are irrelevant to today.

12% of the parents surveyed apparently admitted to having beaten their children up at some stage. What demographic was surveyed? It seems pretty improbable that anyone would admit in a survey to having beaten up a child.

"punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking." - This is well put, it clearly seperates smacking from abuse. Smacking is classified as punishment while burning and choking are said to be assult. It's pretty obvious that these are assult. However we've got Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro and their colleagues screaming out bloody murder, claiming that a parent who cares enough about their child to give him/her a loving smack now and then is a heartless child-abuser.

Over-all, the statistic that 75% of young parents smack their children comes as no surprise. The finding that 12% of young parents abuse their children however, is rubbish. We know for a fact that child-abusers form a very small percentage of our population.

77pc of parents smack - study

According to a new study, 77% of parents smack their children

This from the NZ Herald
_________________________________________________

As many as 77 per cent of parents aged 25 in a study said they had smacked children, with 12 per cent admitting they severely assaulted a child in the past year.

The data was gathered as part of a Christchurch Health and Development Study and reported in the latest New Zealand Medical Journal. "The use of physical punishment and more severe forms of physical assault/abuse are relatively common among contemporary young parents," the study found.

A separate study in the journal also found smacking was widespread in the Pacific Island community, and hitting children with objects was common.

Monday, December 10, 2007

French parents back smacking

from www.thehindu.com

Most French children are used to the odd spank from their parents, and many think there is nothing wrong with that, a new survey suggests. An Internet poll by the Paris-based Union of Families in Europe (UFE), an organisation which defends families' rights in France, shows that 65 per cent of children in France think la fessee — French for a smack on the bottom — is a normal part of their upbringing, with more than half thinking they de serve it.

Spanking is certainly central in a French education if the survey is anything to go by. More than 95 per cent of the 2,000 grandparents, parents, and children polled said they had been spanked at some point in their lives.

A nationwide poll carried out nearly 10 years ago revealed that more than 85 per cent of French parents spanked their children compared with 87 per cent in the new survey. While spanking may still be popular in France, other forms of punishment, such as a slap on the cheek or a kick are rarely used and are considered dangerous by many parents, the survey showed.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Original Section 59 Does Its Job

Family First Media Release - 7 December 2007

Family First is welcoming the conviction of two foster parents who were today found guilty of assaulting two sisters in their care, including hitting one in the face with a baseball bat.

"Despite the original section 59 being available as a possible defence to the couple, it has not protected them in any way, and neither should it have," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The actions of these foster parents were not reasonable – they were simply abusive."

"This case shows that when applied correctly, abusive parents could not use section 59 to their advantage. That was the original design of the law, and it was not the law itself that was at fault – it was simply its application in a couple of high profile cases. It has done its job perfectly in this case."

"But what we have now is confusing to parents, is targeting good and non-abusive parents with malicious and unwarranted complaints, has distracted police and CYF resources from at-risk families, and has done nothing to stem the flow of our unacceptable child abuse rates."

"The law change has failed to target drug and alcohol fuelled abuse or domestic violence, family breakdown or dysfunction, teenage parenting needs, and poverty and stress issues," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Until we resource and support frontline organisations like Plunket and other local community organisations working with at-risk families, provide midwives and appropriate postnatal care (especially to first-time and teen mothers), and strengthen struggling families with appropriate counseling and relationship support, no amount of tinkering with section 59 will achieve anything."

"But 83% of NZ'ers already know that."

Friday, December 07, 2007

11 year old calls the cops on his father.

Another case of the "anti-smacking" law pulling apart families.

This is from stuff.co.nz . My comments in italics.
_____________________________________________________

A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region's first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.

Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent's right to use "reasonable force" when discipling a child.

The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.

Mr Flynn, who has four children, told the Nelson Mail his son called the police two weeks ago after he hit the boy. (we have said all along that kids would be calling the cops on their parents)

Mr Flynn disputes the police summary of facts. He estimated that he hit his son five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a "tiny issue" that blew up.

While the police visited him at home to talk to him, they did not take any action at that stage, he said.

"But I made it quite clear to the cop that if it was needed again, I would smack."

Mr Flynn said that about a week later, he "clipped" his son around the face.

Several days later, he was at home cooking dinner when the police arrived and he was arrested.

Mr Flynn said he wanted to speak out about his case because he thought he would not have been charged under the old law.

"I believe very strongly in smacking as a form of discipline. I'm a Christian, and believe it's what I've been commanded to do.

"I'm not going to lay down and take it. I'm going to kick and scream to the very end."

He said he only occasionally used the wooden spoon, when his son's behaviour was particularly bad.

He believed that passages in the Bible gave him the right to use the spoon, or "rod".

"Parents must have the right to correct their children and give them a good whack if that's what they need. (yes parents need the right to correct their children)

"All this law is doing is making criminals out of good parents. I'm not afraid to say `I smack my kids'." (that's dead right)

He believed that smacking was effective because it was an immediate form of discipline. (again very true)

"We have to have it there, because the kids just know they can get away with anything if it isn't there as a punishment.

"I don't beat my kids. I don't thrash them.

"This new law is going to destroy families. It's already started."

Mr Flynn, who is separated from his wife, said his son had been living with him under an informal arrangement until he appeared in court on Tuesday.

Mr Flynn was granted bail but refused to sign the bail bond because of a condition that he not contact his son. He said he was handcuffed, searched and spent several hours in a holding cell before being released. He intends to appeal the bail condition, and is due back in court on January 18.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk declined to comment on the prosecution, other than to say it had always been illegal for a parent to assault a child.

A 33-year-old Masterton man recently became the first parent convicted under the new legislation. Last month, he was sentenced to nine months' supervision and counselling for grabbing his son and smacking him three times.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who campaigned for the legislation, said the law had changed to put the rights of a child to be free of violence before the rights of the parent.

"What the law is about is protecting babies, children and young people from violence."

Ms Bradford said there were many alternatives to hitting children.

"It's a huge fallacy to think that beating them is helping them. It's hurting and humiliating them." (the father said that he did not beat his kids. )

______________________________________________

section 59 blog will keep you up to date on this latest case.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

It’s OK to Smack – American College of Pediatricians

This is a highly significant article. Must read.

Family First Media Release | 4 December 2007 | click here for article

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP), a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialise in the care of infants, children, and adolescents has released a position statement on the smacking of children.

“This research backs up the argument put forward by Family First and other pro-family groups against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

“The ACP reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concluded that disciplinary smacking by parents can be effective when properly used. They say that the evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan when not relied upon solely to control their child’s behaviour.”

“They say that smacking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed.”

The ACP has published a one page handout for parents titled “Guidelines for Parental Use of Disciplinary Spanking.” This can be viewed [by clicking here]

They have also published an extensive review of the scientific literature on smacking.
Family First is welcoming this balanced, objective and thorough research on the issue of smacking by professionals.

“It flies in the face of the blind ideology peddled by the UN, politicians, Children’s Commissioner, and child welfare agencies who have failed to identify and deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First continues to call on both the government and other political parties to change the current law on smacking so that parents who use the types of smacking recommended by the ACP are not committing a criminal act, and not be at the mercy of police discretion or unwarranted CYF investigation.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Kerre Woodham "3 smacks case"

According to Kerre Woodham of the NZ Herald, the case of the father being convicted for smacking his child 3 times on the bottom is not the sort of case to give the National Party a reason to turn back the clock on the repeal of S59. We agree with her on this, however we would say that increasingly, cases are going to start coming in where good parents are in fact prosectuted for giving their child a light, loving smack.

-------------------------------

It's amazing how many people are defending the actions of a Masterton father who grabbed his child so roughly he bruised him, before smacking him three times. The man, whose identity has been suppressed to protect the identity of his child, pleaded guilty to assault in the Masterton District Court and was sentenced to nine months' supervision and ordered to attend an anger management course.

The conviction has generated howls of protest from the various lobby groups who fought passionately against the anti-smacking bill - here, they say, is in example of a good, honest dad trying to discipline his child and he's been persecuted by a liberal nanny state. Other groups have demanded that National hold true to its promise that if one good parent is prosecuted for smacking their child then National would repeal Sue Bradford's law.

Some people seem to have a very generous interpretation of what it means to be a good parent. If I'd handled my child so roughly she bruised, I would have been appalled.

However, you should have heard the people ringing talkback on Thursday night, suggesting that the boy probably bruised easily. Or that the woman was a vindictive cow looking to make trouble for her husband. Or that the child had committed such a heinous act, any father was justified in acting that way.

A number of callers were incredibly quick to blame everyone but the man himself for the situation he found himself in. If so many people think it's fine and perfectly reasonable to bruise a child, it makes me think this legislation is more necessary than I initially thought. Certainly the National Party doesn't think this Masterton man is a poster boy for parenthood.

As Judith Collins says, under the amendment that Chester Borrows proposed to the anti-smacking legislation, the man would still have been charged because he'd left bruises on his boy. National stands by its promise that the party will repeal the law if it is government and if a parent is prosecuted for smacking their child with an open palm. But given that the mother was so concerned she took photos of the bruising and that the man himself pleaded guilty to assault, this case isn't going to be the one that helps to turn back the clock.

-------------------------------

I have not got the full details of this case so I am only getting second hand information through the media. The National party is taking a cautious approach and rightly so, to this because of the situation surrounding the case and that the Father has had previous trouble with the police.

But I do believe that the National party should take some leadership on this issue and at least say that they will repeal the law back to Chester Borrows proposed amendment.

Remember up to 83% of New Zealanders opposed this law, that should be a mandate for change.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Herald wrong on Anti-Smacking Law conclusions

The below article appeared in The Herald Editorial, Sunday 25 November 07. All comments in bold are my own. I will just mention here that I am most impressed with The Herald's stand agains the Electoral Finance Bill.

----------------------------------------------------

The first conviction under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 has probably realised the worst fear of those who opposed it: that, far from bringing an end to orderly family life as we know it, the law would be applied with wisdom and common sense and people would be stopped doing something they ought not do...

Incorrect. The recent case says nothing by itself. It is foolishness to look at one case and come to a conclusion on the workability of the new Anti-Smacking law. The Government, Police and CYFS have been very quiet in the months following the bill's passing into law. However let us give it one, or two years and we will begin to see the Nanny State horror of Sweden being imposed upon New Zealand families.

...The act, before it was passed in May, was better known as "Sue Bradford's Anti-smacking Bill". But its official name is a better one because it underlines the real intent: in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act,

Incorrect. The bill was labelled by Sue Bradford herself as an "Anti-Smacking bill".

...it removed the protection available to parents - and to no one else - against a charge of assault...


Incorrect. Section (1) of the original law read:
"Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."

...Opponents of the law predicted many dire consequences: that busybodies would tell on their neighbours and police would have no choice but to prosecute; that CYFS would be swamped with notifications relating to loving parents who gave a toddler a tap; that decent Mums and Dads would find the wrathful state marching through their living rooms.

But what has come to pass is precisely what Bradford had hoped, intended and predicted: Ministry of Social Development figures show no increase in numbers of notifications that can be related back to the passage of the bill (by contrast, an increase in awareness prompted by the "It's Not OK" publicity about family violence has resulted in a rise in reporting). Meanwhile police, following up neighbour reports of parents smacking their children, have determined that no assault has occurred.

Whether or not parents are prosecuted for smacking their children is almost beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal for parents to smack their children for the purpose of correction. This places families at the mercy of the State. This new law gives more power to CYFS to intervene in cases where good parents have smacked their children - not beaten them.

In some cases, these neighbour reports may have been petty or spiteful, or even the actions of people trying (and failing) to highlight what they saw as bad law. But, as child protection groups cogently argue, no harm was done: the reported behaviour might have been the tip of an abuse iceberg. Those who speak of trauma and insecurity caused to good families might want to measure it against the trauma and insecurity experienced by James Whakaruru and Delcelia Witika, among others.

Bob McCoskrie of Family First wants the National Party to change the smacking law so that good parents are not "criminalised for lightly smacking their children". But the plain evidence is that this is not happening. Certainly it is not what happened in the case of the Masterton man convicted this week. He smacked his son three times on the backside for misbehaving at school, in the process manhandling the boy sufficiently to leave bruises on his shoulder. He himself admitted that he had over-reacted and lost his temper - and he has agreed to undergo anger-management counselling for which the state will pay.

It is hard to imagine a better outcome - or a plainer demonstration of the law working as it should. Those who see here the spectre of the state intruding into private lives cannot avoid admitting that they would rather see the state clean up after a child is killed. That is the logical extension of a social and legal environment in which it is all right for parents to beat children.

Even the New Zealand Herald falls into the trap of using emotive terms to push a point. No, it was not "all right for parents to beat children" under the old law. Reasonable force is not the same as a beating.

The man's partner has commented pointedly that the young boy concerned is "playing on" his father's conviction. It is hard to imagine such smugness surviving a couple of nights without television or something similar, but in any case, as the judge said, kids can be challenging and adults have to behave responsibly if they want their children to.

This law may have been unpopular but evidence of the widely predicted unintended consequences is pitifully thin. In less than a generation, we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to pass it.

"We" did not pass this law. Our Parliament passed it against the will of approximately 83% of us. The majority of New Zealanders are still unhappy with the new law.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Police shrug off criticism of smacking case

This article from www.nzherald.co.nz - 23 November 07
Of particular interest as it quotes a statement made here on the Section59 blog.

Police are dismissing claims that a controversial law change has made criminals of parents who lightly smack their children, after a man was convicted of assault for smacking his son.

The man, 33, who has permanent name suppression to protect the child's identity, was sentenced in the Masterton District Court this week to nine months' supervision, including parenting and anger-management courses.

The case is believed to be one of the first to come before the courts since a law change in May removed a parent's legal defence of using "reasonable force" for disciplining children.

The prosecutor in the case, Sergeant Garry Wilson, said police evidence included photos of bruises on the boy's shoulder and buttocks.

"It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.

"The family have said that it wasn't the first time," he added.

The man came home one night from work and was told that his 8-year-old son had been in trouble at school.

The summary of facts said: "Becoming angry, the defendant has grabbed the victim's clothes by his shoulder and pulled him up on to the bed.

"He has flipped the victim over his knee and struck the victim three times with an open palm on the buttocks, before roughly sitting him back up."

The man, who pleaded guilty, told police that he had lost his temper and overreacted.

The boy's mother was so concerned that she took photos of her son's injuries and showed them to a relative, who contacted police.

Judge Anthony Walsh said the man might have had a legal defence in the past, but that no longer applied.

"One time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now ... You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected."

The decision to prosecute has been praised by child advocacy groups and Green MP Sue Bradford, who put forward the amendment that repealed section 59 from the Crimes Act.

The amendment was criticised for potentially turning parents who lightly smack their children into criminals, but political opposition was mostly dropped after guidelines were added so that an "inconsequential" use of force would not be prosecuted.

Mr Wilson said police had to use discretion in each case, "but when there's injuries, it has to be put before the court, it has to be more than inconsequential".

The court action has prompted internet calls for the amendment to be scrapped. Andy Moore at section59.blogspot.com wrote that the father had gone "just a little bit over the top" but the case didn't warrant police action.

But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, a vocal critic of the amendment, conceded that any case resulting in bruising should be investigated. But he would not say whether he thought the Masterton case was a reasonable use of force.

The convicted man has previously appeared before the courts, but Mr Wilson did not know why.

The mother had told a court victims adviser the boy's schoolwork had suffered since the incident.

The child's parents were already attending expensive anger-management, parenting and relationship counselling, but under court-ordered supervision the state will now pay.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Whaleoil calls for Key action

A couple of posts from www.whaleoil.co.nz on the new case regarding a father prosecuted for smacking his son.

Email Key

T
o: john.key@national.org.nz

Subject: Time to stand up and be true to your word!

Dear Sir,

We believed you when you said that the first time this happened you would stand up and commit to scrapping this law.
No amount of spin will get you off the hook here.

Please read this : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10477661

Now show us that it is worth staying in NZ . And show us that National has some guts.

Kind Regards, Whaleoil

---------------------------------------------------

And So it Starts

Three smacks and he's 'guilty' - The Dominion Post: local, national & world news from Wellington's daily newspaper

A man has been found guilty of assault against his child for three smacks on the bum.

Sue Bradford lied to us. She now welcomes this conviction as a good example of the law working as intended. HOLD ON, she said this wouldn't happen that Policce would use discretion and the "law of common-sense" would apply.

This law should be repealed and national should commit to repealing it NOW.

---------------------------------------------------

People, email John Key and ask him to take a firm stand on the new law.  He will listen - but only if you speak.

Father sentenced to nine months supervision for smacks

This from The Dominion Post | Thursday, 22 November 2007

"A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking..." (Click here to read the rest of the article)

This is a bit of a catch 22. While I stand by the loving smack as an effective, positive and even necessary tool for discipline of children by their parents, I am not happy at the prospect of parents smacking/hitting their children out of anger, frustration and annoyance.

However, we members of the public have to be very careful before jumping to conclusions. We know that the media loves to saturate their articles with emotive, exagerated terms and descriptions.

You can't have a whole lot of respect for a mother who would dob her own husband into the police for going just a little bit over the top. Parents don't always get it right, but just because they slip up as in a case like this, I do not believe that it calls for police intervention.

-------------------------

David has got it right:

"Absolute Madness. I was raised on a farm in northland - I know if my father had given me a "time out" i would not have given a S**t. Nothing like a good couple of licks with the stock stick to make you think that shooting the neighbours cows with a slug gun is a really bad idea. Frankly I think it is quite pathetic watching parents 'negotiate' with their totally undisciplined children in the supermarket. I think this legislation should be tossed out the door. How hard is it to say "you are allowed to smack you child on the bum, but your not allowed to punch them in the face" on paper?"

comment on this article:
Man pleads guilty to assault for smacking a child, 22 November 2007

Watch out, It could be you next.

As we have said all along, parents who choose to smack their children will be criminalised.

___________________
This from stuff.co.nz

A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking.

The Masterton man was sentenced to nine months' supervision yesterday after admitting he had grabbed his son by the shoulder, held him on his knee and hit him with an open hand.

Green MP Sue Bradford has welcomed the conviction, saying the case is a good example of the May law change working as intended.

The controversial legislation removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

But opponents say the conviction is a disgrace.

Family First national director Bob McCroskrie said parents had every reason to be concerned.

"It's the first of what's going to be many cases of the law targeting good parents. Our predictions have come true."

Masterton District Court judge Anthony Walsh told the man, whose wife is expecting their fourth child: "While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now."

The father, 33, who has name suppression to protect his son's identity, smacked his son on October 29. He had returned home from work to hear that his son had caused some problems at school.

The boy was in his bedroom and his father decided to confront him about his behaviour, the court was told.

Becoming frustrated, the father grabbed his son's clothes at the shoulder and pulled him on to the bed.

The father then flipped the boy over his knee and smacked him three times on the bottom with an open palm, before roughly sitting him back up.

The eight-year-old had bruising to his shoulder, the court was told.

The boy's mother, pregnant with the couple's fourth child, is understood to have taken a photograph of the bruise and shown it to a relative, who told police several days later.

The father admitted he had lost his temper. He refused to comment as he left court.

Judge Walsh, hearing the case in Masterton's newly established domestic violence court, said the smacking law change had redefined the way old attitudes toward disciplining children were viewed.

"Our law was recently amended to make it clear that children should be protected. There are other ways that must be taken to discipline children, short of violence, and that means time out and loss of privileges."

Judge Walsh told the father: "A lot of us are parents, we know children can be challenging - but we are the adults."

The father, who pleaded guilty to assault, and his wife had already sought help with anger management, parenting skills and relationship counselling before yesterday's sentencing.

He was sentenced to nine months' supervision - which means the state will now pay for the counselling.

The law took effect in June, after National inserted a clause stating police should not prosecute inconsequential smacking, though guidelines for officers do not define "inconsequential".

Police were told by their bosses that it would be a matter for the courts to determine in test cases.

Ms Bradford said she was pleased the case had been prosecuted.

"Hitting a child is an assault and there is no longer the protection that there used to be where a case like this would never go before the courts."

Police national headquarters had no figures on smacking-related convictions since June. A report is being prepared.

____________________________________________


Every parent has a reason to be concerned, SMACKING IS NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

Monday, November 19, 2007

A Cindy Kiro quote to start the week

from The Briefing Room Monday 19 November

From this mornings Dominion Post

Six months on from the introduction of the new smacking laws, however, those working at the coalface say fears that sparked the backlash have proved unfounded.

Police are due to release a major review of the change within weeks, but family law and child welfare experts say there has been no noticeable change to the way child violence is being reported.

There have been just two media reports of possible cases of parents being reported for smacking, with no action taken, while Child, Youth and Family reports there has been no significant rise in child abuse notifications since the law change.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said there had been a campaign run by Christian fundamentalist groups which ordinary parents had become caught up in.

"Their [aim] is to run a bigger political agenda and I think they need to be honest about that. I think they used this as a tactic to position a bigger political debate."

Since the change "the sky hasn't fallen in, parents haven't been charged in overwhelming numbers and children haven't been ripped from their families because they received a smack on the hand".

Has flinging "Christian fundamentalist"  about with gay abandon  has become a "tactic" to silence criticism of a "bigger political agenda"?  As a gedankenexperiment  try replacing  the phrase Christian fundamentalist with Jewish.  It makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, when I do it.

In any case the quote  comes at the end of a story reporting on a Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll asking respondents if they thought  the Government had too much control over theirs lives.

No surprise - 57% think they do.

The other 43%   either haven't woken up yet or are content to sit quietly on the mat with their arms folded for the rest of their lives.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

When we sing the National Anthem do we mean it?

God of Nations at Thy feet,
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our free land.
Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.

Men of every creed and race,
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our free land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our state,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our free land.
Lord of battles in Thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.

Let our love for Thee increase,
May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our free land.
From dishonour and from shame,
Guard our country's spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be
Freedom's ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our free land.
Guide her in the nation's van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand.

_______________________________________
This is something we need to seriously think about.

Because it's still legal

Friday, November 16, 2007

Hey Aunty Helen, lets sing

By the way I did not write this, but I have forgotten where I found it. If you find the link, please post a comment.

_____________________________________

We're the sheeple of New Zealand
Once were proud and free
But the socialists who rule us
Want to pass the EFB
All animals are equal
Old Orwell once told me
Except for Aunty Helen
And the Labour Partee

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Lets get shot of the lot
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Old Michaels got our money
He'll never give it back
"I can spend your cash more wisely"
He would swear that on the rack
Health and education are nothing but a joke
And the best that Trev the duck can do
Is give big Tau a poke

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Lets chop out all the rot
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Our brightest are all leaving
As our business's close down
Despite her lies we realise
Dear leader is a clown
She'd like another term
But that we could not stand
Lets vote her out without a doubt
And regain our free land

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Don't put up with their rort
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Monday, November 12, 2007

Sue, What is the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act about?

After writing to all of the MP's regarding the wellington lady who had three police come around to her house after a neighbour called the cops because she smacked one of her children, I finally received a reply from Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford says, "all she needs to do to avoid this eventuality [being arrested] is stop smacking her children."

Once again we see that Sue Bradford's original intention was to criminalize good parents who smack their children occasionally for correction. It hasn't and won't do anything to prevent child abuse.