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.

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.

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

To: 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.

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.

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

Click here to read a good article from the U.T.T.E.R.A.N.C.E. blog - on the signature gathering effort at the A&P Show in Christchurch over this past week.

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

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.

Gay Minister sets sights on sunday schools, creches

From www.newstalkzb.co.nz - 9/11/2007

Sunday schools seem set for the chopping block. Education Minister Chris Carter has confirmed that a gathering of three children under adult supervision constitutes an early childhood education unit, so must be fully licensed. That would see Sunday schools follow gym creches into oblivion.

National Party Associate Education spokeswoman Paula Bennett says that is silly, as often parents are in the same building or just next door. She says parents know what is best for their children.

Paula Bennett says Sunday schools are perfectly safe environments, where parents know exactly what their children are doing.

ENDS

First this Government criminalises smacking and now they want to keep tabs on what is taught in Sunday Schools. What next ??

A question

Why is it ok for parents to use force for the purpose of:

• preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour
• performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting

But it's not ok to use force for the purpose of correction?

All I want to know is...  who says?

Who says that a smack (reasonable force) is now officially and legally classed as child abuse, when using force (not specified that it must be reasonable) for any of the other four categories is accepted?

Who are these over-paid beurocrats to tell us decent, everyday Kiwi mums and dads that we are criminals?

They told us: "Smacking's been illegal for 100 years" (no it hasn't) and... "We just wanted to remove the legal defense for parents to beat and abuse their children" .  Rubbish, such cases do not exist.

They had no leg to stand on, the only way they managed to pass Bradford's confused and poorly worded bill into law was by ignoring you, by ignoring the people of New Zealand.  Polls indicated that 83% of Kiwis were opposed to repeal.  The Letters to the Editor sections were overloaded with annoyed parents and concerned citizens.  They ignored you New Zealand, National sold out and joined forces with Labour to pass the law which now criminalises 78% of good Kiwi parents (as an independent poll taken after the law was passed indicates).

"It's not an anti-smacking bill", they said.  Check out the following link:  Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill

What are we going to do?  Democracy.  Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz where you can find out more information on The Great New Zealand Table Challenge and the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

The Section 59 blog: keeping you informed

Search for Section 59 on Yahoo, and what do you get?

Section59.blogspot.com - ranked #5 out of 114,000,000 results.

click the image to enlarge...

Letter to MPs: "this law is not working"

This is the email that a mate sent to all MP's who voted for the anti smacking law.

 

Recently a Wellington resident had the police come around to her property to 'investigate' a suspected case of 'child abuse'. This parent who occasionally uses a smack for the purpose of correction is now a criminal. When the law was passed we were told that a light smack was not going to be criminalized. This law was and is a Anti smacking law. It has nothing to do with child abuse. The law was put there so that the Government could have control of what goes on in the home. The Government does not trust parents to make the right decisions for their children. What the police said to her when they arrived was that if they had to come around again then she would be arrested. If you are arrested then you are suspect and likely to be charged. This makes you are a criminal or at least gives you the feeling of being a criminal. Even though the police let her off this time she was given a warning.

 

I don't know any good parent who wants the police to come around to their property to 'investigate'.

 

Would you like the police to come around and 'investigate' what you are doing on your property?

 

Think about the many thousands of good parents who now live in fear of the police,, just because they use a smack for correction.

 

This law is not working.

 

If it's broken, FIX IT.

Bradford Attacking the Friends of Section 59 Repeal

Scrubone over at halfdone.wordpress.com writes...

In my experience there are few things quite so shocking as going out of your way to do something good, spending time and effort to do the right thing, then turning around and then suddenly finding yourself deep in trouble because of it.

This comes pretty close to that.

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

“I don’t want to feel like a child abuser, and I don’t want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son,” she said. “It’s brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress.”

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, “not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level”.

Here’s a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

• “My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property.”

Click here to read the rest of this well-researched article.

Normal Kiwi family traumatised: CYFS acts on new Section59

Dave at big-news.blogspot.com has managed to get a copy of the letter that the Wellington mother sent to Family First regarding CYFS and Police acting on the new Section59 and traumatising her family. She said her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand. So she reported it to the Family First lobby who told the media. Below are a few highly important excerpts. Do make sure that you visit Big-news.blogspot.com to read the whole letter, as it is merely a taste of what is to come.

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

[first incident]
"...The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning. The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

...Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate. X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up – X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn't a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry.The teacher seemed to ask questions about X's behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was - only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no...."

[second incident]
"...Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T's and dot their I's.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn't smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child. The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left...

...An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children's work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)...

...We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority."

update: Check out ZenTiger's post over at nzconservative.blogspot.com regarding this story.

School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

By RUTH LAUGESEN - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

"I don't want to feel like a child abuser, and I don't want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son," she said. "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress."

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

In the first incident, she came home one day in the July school holidays to find a card left by Child, Youth and Family asking her to contact a care and protection officer.

The officer told her the agency had received a complaint from the school after her son had hit another child with a ball. When asked why, the boy told the teacher he had been smacked that morning.

The mother of four said she had smacked him on the hand after he had "thrown a wobbly" instead of getting ready for school. The smack had left no mark.

She said hers was "just an average Kiwi family". Both parents worked, did not smoke or drink or "have any addictions". They smacked rarely, preferring to use time out. She said the care and protection officer had decided not to take the matter any further.

The school was unrepentant when her husband questioned its handling of the matter.

In the second incident, in September, three police officers arrived at her house after she smacked her child outside, and a neighbour complained. The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further.

A friend who was at the house at the time, Gabrielle Allen, said the arrival of police was astonishing and intimidating.

"My friend is loud, there's a lot of volume. She's just excitable. I think she's a great mum, and she really loves her children. She's consistent but she's not over the top with discipline at all."

The mother then contacted Family First, a lobby group that vociferously opposed smacking law changes passed in June. The organisation put her in touch with the Sunday Star-Times.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, "not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level".

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskrie said parents now feared the law, and Child, Youth and Family.

A spokeswoman for Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said the minister did not believe the CYFs intervention was a result of the June law change, but reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse.

The Education Ministry said schools had not been given any fresh instructions about reporting smacking since the legislation came in.

ENDS - [emphasies my own]

Unprecedented Socialism from Children's Commissioner

Below are some excerpts from Cindy Kiro's Ten Year Vision for New Zealand, with comments.
Click here to read Cindy Kiro's "Ten Year Vision"

...Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki provides a systematic approach to monitoring development of every child and young person in New Zealand, and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
[It is the Government's job to individually monitor every single child from birth til end of high-school]

Planned assessment at key life stages, including early childhood, primary and secondary school entry, and moving to tertiary education or employment and training opportunities, is a key component of the framework.
[At least four compulsory Government assessments of your child - quite possibly many more]

The assessment will take into account the whole child; their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development. Within these domains different factors will be more important depending on the age of the child.
[The Government is responsible for a child's physical, social, educational, emotional and psychological development.  Oh, I thought that was the parent's job.]

In the early years there is would be a focus on attachment between infant and caregivers, [Yes - that's right, we don't say "parents" now] and on physical growth and development. School engagement is important [Why?] between age five and nine, and at entry to secondary school a review of general health , personal identity and social wellbeing [This will almost certainly include assessment of "sexual orientation" and further aspects of the child's life which are not at all in the Government's jurisdiction] are key issues. The final assessment would focus on preparedness for transition from compulsory education [Only slaves are forcibly educated by their government] to further education, training or employment...

...Where statutory interventions or specialist intervention are required the integrated service delivery will continue, co-ordinated by a practitioner with statutory or professional responsibility to take the lead professional role...
[Parents are not qualified to look after their own children.  Professionals (Agents of the State) must investigate every single child to find out if they meet their criteria]

...For the framework to function effectively, those involved with a child or family will need to have access to information that helps them to make better decisions. A sound information base is essential if we are going to make sure that every child is safe and protected, enjoys the resources to take an active role in society, and understands and enjoys their human rights...
[This means bigger, more comprehensive databases of every single child in the country - from their whole life, not just while they are children]

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

This "Ten Year Vision" is an as yet unprecedented demonstration of communism in New Zealand.  The position of "Children's Commissioner" is a very new one, and set up by our current Labour Government.  With the passing of the anti-parental-authority law, Cindy Kiro has the stepping-stool she needs to reach further into families New Zealand wide. 

As they attempt to further prise apart parents and children, the State is attempting to indoctrinate children with the idea that "you have a chioce", "we're you're friends" - "your parents aren't necessarily the best ones to be looking after you".  "You're 13? no, we won't tell your parents if you go ahead with the abortion", "You're 8 years old, you're old enough to decide for yourself what gender-orientation you wish to associate yourself with".

Watch out Mum's and Dad's of New Zealand, there is a lot of bad stuff coming, just around the corner.  Don't sit back and say nothing.

" All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke/

Mallard Voted For Anti-Smacking - Should Resign

Press Release: Family First | Thursday, 25 October 2007

Family First is calling on Labour MP Trevor Mallard to resign as a result of assaulting another MP.

"Not only has he set an atrocious example to our young people, but in May he voted for Sue Bradford's bill to ban reasonable parental correction," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"Mr Mallard has seen fit to criminalise good parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction, yet has assaulted another MP. No reasonable force. Not for the purpose of correction. Simply a lack of control and discipline."

"Mr Mallard can suggest that there were extenuating circumstances, but this same defence is not available to parents. Police discretion should not be available in an extreme case like this," says Mr McCoskrie. "There was absolutely nothing reasonable in what he did."

In the interests of maintaining the integrity and standard of political leadership, Mr Mallard should accept the standards imposed on all other New Zealand's and resign.

Misbehaving Teens need better Discipline

Misbehaving Teens need better Discipline Retiring Cop Says
from www.stuff.co.nz | Monday, 8 October 2007


retiring Havelock policeman, Senior Constable Graeme Barsanti, says youths are out of control.

Police are powerless to make youths accountable for their actions, says a retiring officer.

Senior Constable Graeme Barsanti, of Havelock, will end 39 years in the police on October 19.

He said more respect and discipline were needed.

Barsanti told of seeing two boys, 14 and 11, on skateboards who nearly hit a woman on the main street of Havelock. He told them to take more care and to be more respectful of older people.

"Their words to me are unprintable and because of their age I could do nothing," Barsanti said.

Two days later, the boys yelled foul language across the road to him and members of the public heard, he said.

"When I approached them and their parents, they used the same foul language to their parents and said, `You can't do anything to me'," Barsanti said.

"To me, the parents have a right to deal with their kids and I should have a right to hold them responsible for their actions."

Although he could take young offenders' names and refer them to Youth Aid for a family group conference, bureaucracy had gone wrong, he said. "There was nothing I could do and the parents were scared to discipline their children because they could be done for assault," he said.

"In the old days I have taken kids behind the building and given them a whack up the backside, taken them home to their parents, and the parents have asked me to whack them instead of the parents (disciplining them)."

Years ago, when working in Opunake in Taranaki, he would get young offenders to polish the fire engine in the main street.

Parents supported that because it meant they were not paying a fine, and the youngsters were being held accountable for their actions, he said.

These days, very few things were done as a family, said Barsanti.

"You don't see families going away together," he said.

"Kids aged 14 and 15 are going off and doing their own things. You've got to bring back respect, loyalty and some discipline."

Barsanti, who will turn 60 two days after his retirement, said he loved the job but had decided it was time to finish.

He has been on the Marlborough District Council since 1989 and is standing for re-election.

He is also standing for election for the first time to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board.