30 June 2007
Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.
Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.
"We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances."
"It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances."
"However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated."
"The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF's for possible investigation and intervention."
"That's how farcical this law is," says Mr McCoskrie. "Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children's Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe's actions totally unacceptable."
But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Cunliffe is ahypcrite, from Handard
This is the only time I have spoken in this debate, and I conclude by doing something very rare. I do not like ever to bring politicians’ personal lives into debate, and I certainly have never done it to anybody else, but I want to say something personal, on my own behalf, as my colleague Shane Jones has done. I am a relatively new dad. I have a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old. I have used corporal punishment in the past. I grew up in a family where, within moderation, that was the norm. I want to acknowledge my wife, who has staunchly held the view that that is not an appropriate form of parenting. I have learnt not to use corporal punishment. I have learnt that if I have to smack one of my two darling sons, that says a lot more about me and my lack of parenting skills than it says about them. Any kid can drive us up the wall. Anyone who has kids knows that, right? We get tired, and they get tired, and they have the odd bit of chocolate after tea and they can work themselves up into a bit of a lather. But smacking does not help. That is what I have learnt out of all of this debate.
Throughout this debate, as a country we have come on a journey, and I have come on a bit of a journey as a dad, too. If anybody says that I am voting the way I am on this bill because my whips told me to, then I say that, as much as I respect my whips, I am voting with my conscience. I am also voting with my life experience here. (Interruption) Yes—I am also voting with my wife’s instructions. I would not want to go home if I changed my vote. Some members know my wife, and they know that would be a very bad idea. I am surrounded by strong women; it is fantastic. I know that this is the right thing to do. I know that my children will learn better if I sit down and explain to them what is right and wrong—not if I belt them to try to get the point across. My kids have the same spunk and spine as my wife has. I do not bow down to that kind of pressure. But they also have brains, and they know how to listen to an argument, even at 5—actually, even at 2. I am proud of my little family, and I am proud of the way that they are growing up
I think you pretty much summed it up, Dave, when you stated that we as a country have been on a journey.
From the time when I was growing up, where parents could pretty much do what they wanted - smack their children, hit their children, wash their children's mouth out with soap, threats and bribes, kicks and punches, glares and shouts and screams and yells, etc, to the time we are in now, where we have a brave politician named Sue Bradford who walks the walk, so to speak. Sue sticks up for minorities and the country is better for it.
So it is very much a journey. It's a path of learning for people. I know some parents who thought the only way they could parent adequately was by smacking their children when they misbehaved. Now those parents are no longer under the corrupting power of the brainwashing they inflicted on themselves as a means to justify the way they themselves were brought up, and they are good parents that do not smack their children, which is of course a step in the right direction!
I would just like to finish by verbally applauding the incredible efforts of Sue Bradford once again. Sue is such a champion, I appreciate all she has done. She's put up with a lot for the long-term good of the country and I believe New Zealand has never had a better politician than Sue.
Anon, Dave did not say that; he was quoting the hypocritical Labour MP, David Cunliffe.
It has not been a journey, merely a demonstration of our anti-democratic government. From the 2nd til' the 8th of July, I and a few friends collected 1,434 signatures for Larry Baldock's Citizen's Initiated Referendum on the issue of the anti-smacking bill.
I spoke to many, many Kiwi mums and dads, children, high-schoolers, university students, grand-parents, as well as tourists from places such as England and Australia. The majority of these agreed with my point of view, that the parents should decide how they bring up their own children.
See The cir/chch website
You mention "corrupting brainwashing", but you seem not to be concerned at the social-engineering which is rotting New Zealand from the inside out.
None of the parents I spoke to during that last week believed that "smacking was the only way of discipline". Several mothers commented that "I don't smack my children, however I want to sign the petition because the Government has gone too far".
As for your last paragraph: gimme a break.
There was once an interesting land. Let's call it the Land of Plenty. The Land of Plenty started out humbly enough. An adventurous Asian discovered it, more Asians were brought to it, they multiplied and decided to call themselves a race of a different name.
Soon, European settlers settled on the Land of Plenty, bringing their wealth from countries afar and helping the Asians to live in a more civilized way.
The Europeans and the Asians intermarried so well, that soon enough, almost everyone who lived in the Land of Plenty was a combo of both Asian and European in their ethnicity.
The Land of Plenty went through good times and bad. There were wars in distant lands in which Land of Plenty citizens went to fight in; there was economic growth at times, and economic hardship at other times. There were corrupt corporate types that fleeced the country of its material wealth by befriending politicians and coming up with dodgy schemes in which taxpayer's money was, through a series of complicated agreements, transferred to the wealthy corporates, who then divvied it up.
Soon, though, a New Age began in the Land of Plenty. Corrupto was a politician who was secretly a puppet for evil forces. Corrupto's strings were pulled and the general public of the land was amazed at what 'corrupto' could do. Corrupto was soon elected into a very powerful position in Government and Corrupto, after a while, ruled over the entire Land of Plenty.
Soon after Corrupto had taken complete control over the land, a very large-scale world war took place. Millions of people were killed, most countries were destroyed. But the Land of Plenty, in most part, was still intact.
Corrupto, under the guise of being helpful in a time of need, conveniently decided to let many people come and live in the land as refugees.
The land was reshaped. No longer were there vast fields and paddocks. It quickly become a mass of cluttered houses and skyscrapers. The land was so full of people that people were no longer allowed to have a lot of land to themselves.
Corrupto and his masters used the huge population to their advantage. People were brainwashed and led to believe that evil things were actually good things.
Sooner or later, though, Christ returned to rectify the situation ...
Boy..... you have got a problem.
Christian. It changes the way I look at everything.
Yes it does Andy -yes it does
And you would be...
The above makes "interesting" reading. However, Sue Bradford has the right idea but wrong implementation. No it isn't right to beat your child. Yes, there are other ways to discipline your child. But the law as it stands means that if my 2 yrs old sister went to run across the road because she saw a ball on the other side and I pulled her back because I saw a car coming - oops I'm in trouble. You can shake your head and say no one in their right minds would punish you for that...but as the law stands - if my yanking her back leaves a red mark on her arm - then yes I could be in trouble.
That will be on my "criminal" record. Any future job prospects I may have where they ask for a copy of your records from the police will show that I have been charged with abusing a minor or whatever it may be called.
It's very clear - People that beat their children will still continue to do so. It was illegal before and it's illegal now. Education and support systems are the best mechanisms we have. And NZ is very much following the individualist model where it's each to their own - we were not created to do life by ourselves. A focus back on communities and helping others would be very beneficial.
But the government throws their hands up and says "it's too hard, let's just prosecute". I would prefer my tax dollars went to educating and supporting families. At the end of the day neither you or I are going to be there in five years time, to jump in everytime there may be physical punishment...give a man a fish or teach him to fish?
Let's be the friends at the top of the cliff instead of the ambulance at the bottom.
thanks for your comment.
It's going to be interesting to see what does go down on record; what parents are prosecuted for.
The real problem with the new law is that good parents who choose to give their child an occasional light smack will be criminals under law. In the near future, the new law will not be applied to it's maximum capacity, however 5 years, 10 years down the line, parents will be being prosecuted for what today is seen as a very light smack.
The new law would be better known as the "anti-parental authority law", as that is exactly what it is. This government is falling over itself to take responsibility for children away from the families and giving it to the state. Even now, our MPs have the question before them "should the age of criminal responsibility be lowered to 12?".
It's a no-brainer.
Children are parent's responsibility. Not the State's. Our old law, Section 59 was perfect.
It stated that parents may use force so long as it was reasonable in the circumstances.
Despite children being the responsibility of their parents, the State still has the duty to implement legislation which protects children from potential harm. Obviously that was one of the main aims in bringing in the Bill.
Yes, the State does have that duty. However, in introducing this new law they have way overstepped their jurisdiction. The intention of the new law would appear to be to reduce harm to children, and that is a good motivation, however the Government has gone against the will of the majority, which is a communistic action.
Post a Comment