Friday, May 11, 2007

Girl, 10yrs: Govt. shouldn't tell us what we can and can't eat

from -
Christchurch's The Star, Friday paper11.05.2007

There will be no more fish and chip lunches at Avondale Primary School, and 10-year-old Georgia Wederell is not happy.

In the past the school has held a fish and chip lunch day each winter term, however this year the lunch has been canned, leaving Georgia disappointed.

"It's really annoying," she said.

"We should have the choice of whether we have fish and chips or not. It should be up to us and our parents, not the Government telling kids what they can and can't eat ."

Georgia thought the key to healthy eating was being able to make choices, knowing the good from the bad and not being told "no" she cannot have a particular type of food.

"It should be up to us, not the school or anyone else. I don't like fish and chips that much anyway, but it's the principle of it."

Georgia's dad, Mark Wederell, agreed. He said he knew some parents made unhealthy choices for their children on a regular basis, but other children shouldn't be punished for that.

"We should at least be able to have the choice," he said.

Avondale principal Mark Scown said the fish and chip lunch was cancelled as it "flew in the face" of the school's health curriculum.

Click here to read the rest of the article


Georgia would make a better Prime Minister than Helen Clark.

The Labour party has completely lost it

from here written 28.03.06

Our government are a complete bunch of wankers, tosspots and morons. Banning smacking is designed to intentionally criminalise the vast majority of parents, so they can be arrested and charged at any time - the way an Authoritarian state starts its business plan.

Then HC says that Police "are smart enough to enforce the law appropriately" even after the police have said they will be FORCED to investigate EVERY allegation of smacking. This will mean that in short order, children will be blackmailing parents with the threat of calling the cops and saying they've been smacked. Handing that power to children is insane.

Then, the implication that the police will not charge anyone for "light smacking" regardless that it is illegal, seems to suggest that the laws of NZ will not be enforced. Can I then shoplift only small items, and plead in court that it is the equivalent of "light smacking" because it is only "light theft"?

Honestly, it boggles the mind that ANY government could even CONSIDER passing a law where 85% of voters are against it.

Our country is run by complete nutjobs.

Letter to MPs from Saudi Arabia: "Please vote for families"

from the KiwiSmithFamily Blog

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

I just receive a news that you may voting on May 16 for a Bill that will make illegal for parents to correct their children, this mean remove from the parents their duty of educated the children in the good behavior.

Please, do not make of New Zealand a country where the family will be debilitate, a country where children did not respects the elders. God has giving to the parents the authority to educate the children, not do try to go against God wills, this is not the smart decision.

I am afraid that if this re-written Section 59-Parental Control, becomes a law, I will never travel to your country, will be no more a save place to visit.

Please, Vote for the Families,


Telephone Saudi Arabia
Cellphone Todd
Address Saudi Arabia:
Al Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia

Section59 does it's job this week



The defence of reasonable force was used in this week's High Court trial in Auckland which ended in manslaughter convictions.

Lawyers for Maine Ngati and Teusila Fa'asisila had used section 59 of the Crimes Act to defend charges of murder, ill-treatment and failure to provide the necessaries of life. The Crown alleged a three-year-old was beaten with a baseball bat and vacuum cleaner pipe, but the accused maintained reasonable force was used.

After the verdicts, Detective Senior Sergeant Richard Middleton said he did not want to be drawn into a political debate, but said there is no need for parents to hit their kids.


This is a case where the accused maintained they had used reasonable force with their 3 year old.  It is quite obvious that the treatment of their child, resulting in the child dying was anything but reasonable.

Section59 does it's job once again.

So why are we getting rid of it?  Because our Socialist Parliament dictates that that is what is going to happen.

They don't care that 68% - 83% of New Zealanders do not want reasonable force (smacking) to be made illegal.  We voted them in to represent us, but they turn their backs and ignore us.

The Smacking Debate Sumarised

Scrubone from explains what is happening with Section 59, using some helpful diagrams.

A lot of people don't really understand the smacking debate, so I've come up with this neat little diagram to try and explain it.

As you can see, there are 5 sections. These represent different "force" applied to a child.

A) (Abuse) represents force outside the law - assault on a child. It is large, as there are plenty of ways to get into this category - it's sadly too easy.

B) (Borderline) represents borderline cases - cases the police or CYFS thought were assault but were dismissed by the courts. The most famous of these is the "riding crop" case. Only 7 cases fall defended under Section 59 fall into this category over the last 10 years, but there are others dismissed by the courts for other reasons. Therefore, this category is very small.

C) (Correction) represents reasonable force for correction (smacking) legal under current law. It's larger, as these events are quite common in normal parenting.

D) (Doing?) represents reasonable force for parenting - restraining a toddler from crossing a road, lifting a child into bed, putting a child down to change a nappy. These acts are all force, and all are reasonable. This space is average size, since it's not in dispute here and I will mention it only briefly.

E) (Eugh - don't kiss me grandma!) represents reasonable force used in everyday life - hugs, shaking hands, kisses etc.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Dictatorship of Two


Winston Churchill said about democracy,
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

At the moment we can see one of those "other forms" in process. According to Rodney Hide, a "dictatorship of two".

We have gone from Clark telling us 'I know best' to Key and Clark telling us 'We know best'. If that's 'going forward' I hate to think what 'going backward' looks like.

Lindsay: "Argument from Clark is hollow"

yet another excellent article from

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was talking up NZ's poor record of keeping its children safe.

She said, in respect of Bradford's Bill, The Government has taken a position because of its great concern about being bottom in the developed world in relation to the rate of death and injury of children in our homes. We are absolutely delighted that Parliament has been almost unanimous in taking a stand on these issues. We believe that that will be good for children and families of our country.

She refers, in part at least, to the Innocenti Report Card below which shows deaths due to maltreatment.

The New Zealand statistic was based on the average number of deaths from 1994 - 98. In the five years to 2003 it dropped to 0.9 but let's ignore that we managed that drop without banning smacking.

Look at the top four countries; Spain, Greece, Italy and Ireland. When the statistics were collected none had bans on physical punishment in the home. If the Prime Minister is going to use comparisons to other countries as the basis for her edicts she should familiarise herself with the facts.

68% to 83% of Kiwis say: "Drop the bill!"

Here are the results from the most recent TV3 poll:

Question: Do you support the anti-smacking bill now that it has been amended?
Results: Yes - 539, or 16%; No - 2244, or 68%; Don't know - 146, or 4%; I was happy with the bill as it was - 370, or 11%.
Total votes: 3299
confirmed by Jono Hutchinson, online News Editor for TV3 News

And here is the research by Family First, showing that 83% of Kiwis want to keep Section 59:
Click here to see the outcome of the research based on 21 polls New Zealand wide

So we're all asking Parliament: Why are you going ahead and pushing this stupid bill through?

Click here to Email the MPs and ask them to vote according to their concience, and to listen to what the people of New Zealand are saying

Tariana Turia: supports repeal but plays down murder of baby

I found this interesting comment here.  May 8

Of course Turia also blames the settlers for wiping out every Maori in NZ due to a Holocaust a couple of hundred years ago.

While Turia is supporting Bradford's stupid anti smacking Bill a few of Turia's great people have murdered a 2 year old baby. Yet Turia doesn't claim the baby was murdered at all. Turia is in complete denial over it because a few of her own people are involved and hasn't managed to think upa way of blaming the first settlers to NZ for it yet.

How crazy is it for someone supporting Bradford's stupid anti smacking  Bill to be playing down the murder of the 2 year baby New Zealander and defending the gangs as well?

Save the Children Report - Further Proof that Smacking Isn’t the Issue

Family First Media Release 9 May

The latest report from Save the Children "State of the World's Mothers 2007 - Saving the Lives of Children Under 5" is further evidence that the proposed ban on smacking is a 'feel-good' policy which has been adopted by 17 countries now without any identifiable or tangible benefit.

For the child death rate in the developed world, NZ currently ranks 21st. Of the top 20 safest countries, less than half have banned smacking. And the worst country for child deaths, Romania, banned smacking 3 years ago.

"Save the Children in New Zealand have trumpeted this report as further evidence that section 59 should be repealed," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, "yet this report is simply further proof that groups like Save the Children, Barnardos and EPOCH are barking up the wrong tree in relation to child abuse."

"The report quite correctly identifies the health and well-being of the mother, the availability of skilled health personnel during births, education and poverty as key contributors to children being at risk."

The report reiterates the issues that Family First is highlighting. It says "Factors such as single parenthood, low levels of maternal education, teenage motherhood, substandard housing, large family size and parental drug or alcohol abuse increase the risks that a child will not survive to age 5."

Mr McCoskrie says it is time that groups like Save the Children, CYF and UNICEF in NZ started reading their own reports and started advocating for dealing with the actual causes of child abuse, rather than attacking good families.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Garry Mallett on Section 59


ACT President Garry Mallett - Speech To Hamilton Public Meeting


The reasons why parents must be permitted to use reasonable force.
Defeating Sue Bradford's irrational case for the repeal of section 59?

"As a parent I'm trying to teach my children to understand right and wrong.

I'm trying to teach my children manners and courtesy and high level concepts like self-responsibility, justice, that actions have consequences.

Raising children is one of the biggest challenges, the highest responsibilities and the greatest pleasures that any parent can assume.

Smacking is not the only tool – not by a long shot. But smacking – the use of "reasonable force" - is a vital tool that all parents must have available to them in that process.

No one is suggesting that smacking be mandatory but it must not be outlawed.

The section 59 defence of "reasonable force" must remain in our law."

Full Text Of Speech To Hamilton Public Meeting - 01 May 2007:

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads, sons and daughters. My name is Garry Mallett - welcome and thank you for your attendance.

I always feel good addressing a group like this – a group of ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads, sons and daughters. Because I know that I'm addressing a group of New Zealanders who live the New Zealand ideals.

We're people who take great pride in earning our own way through life. We contribute enormously to our communities through our work, through our involvement with voluntary organisations and through our families. I salute you.

And, very importantly, we live in the real world.

Compare that with the world from whence this hideous bill was spawned, that unreal and very unusual world - the world of politics.

Politics is a weird, strange, messy, Kafkaesque world.

Far too often it's an alternative universe where - because of the nature of their role - the participants are frequently far removed from the real world we live in.

And due to that separation from reality it becomes very easy and seductive for politicians to believe they can change the very nature of that reality.

But the real world – reality – the world where normal people work, raise families, live and die – is a world that follows the laws of reality. And the laws of reality don't change at the stroke of a legislator's pen.

One of the most fundamental laws of reality is:

"That entities act according to their nature."

"Entities act according to their nature."

Let me say that one more time because it is just so important …

"Entities act according to their nature."

You may be more familiar with this concept as "the law of cause and effect" or maybe "actions have consequences."

This is a metaphysical law - a law of reality. And laws of reality – like the law of cause and effect will trump the edicts of the politicians every time.

And this anti-sacking bill is a perfect example of politicians trying to evade the laws of cause and effect - of evading the axiom that entities act according to their nature.

By-the-way has anyone else noticed the rampant hypocrisy. Sue Bradford is crusading to criminalise the use of "Reasonable Force" i.e. parents smacking their children.

This is the same Sue Bradford, who in a former incarnation as spokesman for the beneficiaries union, didn't bat an eye-lid when it came to using brutal force - trespass, destruction of private property and physical force - to impose her opinions on others.

However there is one prominent politician who, to her credit, can not be accused of hypocrisy.

Helen Clark, may well have lied when, just prior to the last election, she told the electorate that she would not support a smacking ban. So Helen may have lied - but she certainly did not engage in any hypocrisy on this.

Because – as far as I'm able to determine – Helen Clark never, ever smacked any of her children.

But anyway I digress.

My first point is.

And here I will ask your help to illustrate my point.

Would all of you who are parents please raise your hand - doesn't matter if your kids are grown up.

Now please keep your hand raised if you smacked your children by way of discipline and/or instruction.

Now please keep your hand raised if - as a consequence of smacking your child – your smacking escalated from reasonable force to abuse – rising to bashing, assault or even murder.

Not surprisingly there is not a hand aloft in the room.

Yet one of the fundamental premises justifying the anti-smacking crusade is "escalation".

By escalation I mean - in the same way that people believe using marijuana escalates to harder drugs – so the proponents of this bill claim that smacking escalates to bashing and more brutal forms of abuse.

The proponents of the anti-smacking bill would have us believe that parents develop a blood lust – a hunger - after that first smack and somehow, similar to the feeding frenzy of sharks, that first smack escalates up to the horrible beatings which appall us all.

But this is simply wrong – it's a lie, a falsehood, a con-job. Because it's an evasion of that law of reality that "entities act according to their nature"

The entities – "loving parents" - do not, by definition, bash and abuse their children. It is not in their nature.

In fact let's just for a second drop the "loving parents" label.

Good parents, average parents, indeed below average parents do not escalate from smacking (i.e. using reasonable force) to bashing and abusing their children. It is simply not in their nature.

So, without need of academic studies, or a "commissioner of child discipline" costing millions of taxpayers' dollars, I hope you can see that this "escalation theory" of smacking is a departure from the truth.

My second point.

At the start of this talk I welcomed you as ladies and gentlemen, mums and dads and sons and daughters. I did that for a purpose.

Every single one of us is a son or a daughter and every single one of us was once a child. And nearly every single one of us was smacked as a child.

How many of you were smacked as children. Please raise your hands?

The proponents of the anti-smacking bill maintain that you poor souls grew up in a culture of violence!

Now – all you sons and daughters – please keep your hands raised.

Now keep your hands raised if you believe that your parents' smacking bred into you a culture of violence. That your being smacked as a child turned you from a decent human being into the type of person who beats and destroys your own children.

Every arm has fallen – there I've just saved New Zealand taxpayers more millions of dollars in studies, reports and commissions we don't need.

So the entity – "loving parents" and the entity "children who've been smacked as they were raised" have acted according to their nature – they have not perpetrated a culture of violence – they have not beaten, bashed, abused or murdered their children.

No those "loving parents" and those "children who were smacked as they were raised" are the decent people we meet every day, they're the people teaching our kids, they're the people serving us in shops, they're your workmates, the people living next door - they're the decent people sitting in this room – they are us.

Click here to read the rest of this well-written article

Blatant propaganda, lies from left-wing organisations

Lindsay Mitchell delivers another fantastic, well thought out article. She here breaks down the UN Report which groups such as Save the Children, and people such as Bradford and Clark enjoy quoting from so much.

"More propaganda from left-wing organisations. Save The Children are deploring New Zealand's ranking of 20th of 44 developed countries in child status.

The report shows New Zealand has a long way to go in protecting children under five. Out of 43 more developed countries, New Zealand ranks 20th in child wellbeing. In fact, New Zealand falls well behind Malta and Slovenia.

New Zealand's under-5 mortality for 2005, the major factor in this rating, was 6 per 1,000 live births. Sharing this exact same statistic were Australia, Canada, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom.

Of course then comes the predictable reference to section 59 removal and what a difference that will make.

"Not only will the Bill better protect children, but it will also enable New Zealand to meet its international and moral responsibility to protect children from abuse. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993 we have agreed to protect children from all types of mistreatment including physical punishment," says Save the Children New Zealand's Executive Director, John Bowis.

Of the countries with a mortality rate of 4 per 1,000 Finland, Sweden, Norway and Italy have banned smacking. Czech Republic, Japan and Slovenia have not. It's the same mixed picture across the countries with a mortality rate of 5.

Mortality rates don't equal deaths due to maltreatment alone but they are treated as such by people with leftist agendas."

Suggested amendment to Bradford's bill

In essence, we are asking that Sections 2 and 3 be removed from the bill.

Here is how Bradford's Anti-Smacking bill currently reads:

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of
the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in
the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care
and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the
use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to
prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in
place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force
against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential
that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.


The bill as it would read with the proposed ammendment:

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of
the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in
the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care
and parenting.

( 2 ) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not
to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing
in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of
force against a child where the offence is considered to be so
inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a

National: Your Nation Needs You!

Urgent Attention - John Key - National Party Leader


Dear Mr John Key

The Eathorne's tragic case (see press release copied to all National MPs below) shows what can happen when police discretion is misapplied - charges (of assault on a child under 14 years s. 194 of Crimes Act) were pursued for inconsequential domestic force - and good parents were criminalised (convictions and heavy fines were issued).

Of course this (unsound use of discretion) can happen under the current Crimes Act relating to s. 194 but at least a s.59 defence is actually open to parents NOW if they find themselves facing charges for using "unreasonable force" in the correction of their children (assault) and they believe they have done nothing more than apply reasonable force for correction in the circumstances. Under s. 59 (2) "The reasonableness of the force used is A QUESTION OF FACT". Under Bradford's flawed bill, even with the new amendment, in Court cases where it can be established that some element of correction was involved the question of "reasonableness" is NOT a question of fact that can be examined by the Court.

If Bradford's flawed bill becomes law there is NO defence open to such a parent, IF police, following a misapplication of their discretion, lay charges for force used for correction. (We are assuming here that there are facts that provide compelling evidence contra the police. that in reality the incident was (1) "inconsequential" in terms of force used and (2) not in the "public interest" to pursue. The problem is that 1 & 2 remain undefined! and these facts CANNOT be tested in Court).

Under Bradford's legislation - once in place .......

A good and honest parent charged with assault for using what he/she genuinely believed at the time was only inconsequential force for correction, would be doing wrong not to plead guilty in Court of committing an "offence" under the Crimes Act. Why? Because the use of all force in such circumstances involving correction is defined as a criminal "offence" - an ILLEGAL act. There is NO defence open to them. They have no alternative if they wish to be dealt with leniantly by the Court. Like the Eathornes they face the full wrath of the Court Judge who made an example of them. All the police prosecutor has to do, goaded by CYFS, is to establish that the force had some sort of consequenes e.g. the child cried or felt aggrieved, so therefore the incident was NOT inconsequential.

Inconsequential means WITHOUT consequennces.

HOWEVER, a (disciplinary) smack is supposed to hurt and cause some minor discomfort. A smack with a wet bus ticket for wrongdoing does not constitute correction. The vast majority of NZ parents (> 80%) believe they should have a right in law - a justification - for using firm but fair corporal discipline where reasonable force is applied - eg a firm hard smack to the open hand or padded back-side. Bradford's bill would remove any and all such justification and brand all parents who use force for correction as those who commit illegal acts (crimes).

Just in case you think that a clever defence lawyer COULD argue that the force was "incosequential" therefore there should be no conviction.... THis is NOT an option. The questions of whether the force was "inconsequential" or in "the public interest" is NOT A QUESTION oF FACT; they are only matters that inform police discretion PRIOR to charging the offender. AGAIN THEY ARE NOT MATTERS OF FACT.

In the current law section 2 states: "THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FORCE USED IS A QUESTION OF FACT."

The Court decision CANNOT turn on either of these questions. Why? Because they NOT questions of fact. The police, by proceeding with the prosecution have passed over these issued and settled these matters. They cannot cannot be revisited in Court as a ground for concluding that no offence was committed.

The person charged, has nowhere to turn in law to secure a line of defence.



Yours sincerely

David Lane
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

We're Not Happy, John

These comments from John Key's website.

John, it appears that you are a pragmatist rather than a man of principle. I'm greatly disappointed at the deal your party has made with Labour and the Greens. It is not too late to admit you made a mistake and to stand by the less-than-silent, overwhelming majority of NZers who are opposed to any change to section 59.”

“If New Zealand politicians - elected, and unelected, keep taking us down this road of political expediency, and bowing to interest groups who have no political mandate, we would be better off joining in political union with Australia. My wife and I will have to seriously consider moving across the Tasman if National cannot stop and reverse Labour / Greens / United, etc, idiocy.”

National now supports the right of parents to break the law in the belief that they are not going to be caught."

Parliament is going to redefine parliamentary intent by including breaking the law it is making as part of that intent, because of one word that is to be deleted from Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

That word is justification.

There will no longer be legal justification for correcting kids. Consequently, good parents may be subject to a CYFS complaint for breaking the law and that is fine with Helen Clark because she is so chuffed that she is able to get the bill off the agenda before the budget.”

“You speak as if smacking were an understandable mistake that stressed parents sometimes make.

No - I choose to smack my kids because I want them to learn and grow into responsible adults.

It is not acceptable that I will now be "a criminal but not worth arresting".

Don't wait for a prosecution - assure us that you will change this law at first opportunity.”

We are very disappointed. To see Helen so pleased with you, John, alone must send warning bells ringing.”

It's irrational for you to justify passing fundamentally bad legislation into law on the basis it's a good compromise - it's a mockery of our democratic process when the majority are opposed to it - plus it will have zero effect on child abusers and is an intolerable 'State' invasion of the family as you have no mandate to impose this level of your child rearing beliefs on parents. You've lost my vote, and from what I can gather those of my immediate voting family of 5. We are appalled ... and dismayed you have contrived not only to do the wrong thing, but to hand a massive bouquet to Helen Clark in the process.”

John, Is it sinking in yet? Of 95 comments to date on this blog, by my count there are 71.5% clearly against your action, only 18% for, and 10.5% not really happy. So over 80% still not wanting this bill or its meaningless amendment. I felt sick to the stomach and hugely let down. As a parent I am not at all reassured by the slight hope that I would not be prosecuted if I smacked by children. The thought of any good parent having the police an CYFS turn up at their home and having to go through an ordeal of defending themselves is what parents are still left having to fear - not the faint hope that they will probably not be prosecuted. Image if that happened to you John! You should have taken a stand and continued to represent the wishes of the electorate. The evening you were meeting with Helen, I was phoned by a poll. I told them I'd vote National for party and National for Electorate (same as last time). Now I have seriously lost confidence in you and your party. In all my years voting there has never been an issue so critical and important to me personally and the nation, as this one. This was a 'defining moment' for you John. There are times for compromises but this was not one of them. but it should have been one where you stood up for what was right, and if they passed it, you change it later. I sincerely hope you can be swayed to review what you've done and see if you can undo this mess.”

You have lost my confidence too. So many people have been saying that this issue will get rid of Labour and good riddance, and then you go and make a stupid move like this that shows you're exactly the same. We real parents love our kids and the fear of having someone falsely accusing us of abusing our kids and being investigated by CYFS is very real too. Even with the amendment, any smack is still a crime so what can any parent do if accused? Please see sense and redeem the National party by encouraging all of your MPs to vote against the bill which hasn't changed at all with the amendment. Stand up for what is right and stop supporting Helen Clark.”

A backdown by National. National should have seen their policy through, even if if meant losing this time. My support for National is now gone.”

I have been a National supporter all my life and I do not want to change, however when something like this Bill is put forward by a bunch of no hopers and 80%+ of New Zealand clearly do not want it, then the National Party leader whom I have a lot of admiration for, decides to come up with an amendment that allies the National Party to the Bill I start to wonder about my loyalty to the National Party. I believe you would have been better to sit back and let Labour and Helen Clarke tighten the noose even further. If this bill had been passed in its form prior to yor amendment, I am confident that not even the ardent Labour supporters would have voted for them. John Key would have lead the next National Party into government with the largest number of votes ever recorded by any political party. I would even say it may have been the long awaited demise of the Labour Party, as we know it.”

Very disappointed with the National Party.
If the amendment really was a victory, then it is obvious that Sue Bradford would not be happy.

She is happy.

That means that CYFS will still have the extra power to remove children when it is reported that they have "been smacked too hard" for instance.

"inconsequential or not in the public interest" are arbitrary terms, and CYFS will be able to use Bradford's bill to it's full extent, as if it had not been amended.

Mr Key, My husband and I had planned to assist you in your campaign next election to get Labour thrown out, but instead we are forced by your foolishness to leave the country with our 7 children and become refugees. Of our personal friends at least 3 other families will be doing the same. Act will get our (absentee) votes next election because Heather Roy and Rodney Hide were the only MP's who spoke the truth in the debate last night.
You have deeply disappointed us.”

Letters to the Editor

Every single letter to the Editor in this morning's Press (9 April 07), concerning Bradford's bill; was opposed to her bill.  Here are some of them:

Peter Collier (Perspective, April 19), and Ron Hay (May 2) wish to avoid being labelled as fundamentalists, as they want the term kept for those who are simplistic and over-literal, especially in the area of our origin. But at what point does an evangelical start to believe the Bible means what it says?

Liz O'Callaghan


The Bradford bill passed another stage because Key and Clark whipped their MPs into the party line on an issue that should have been a concience vote

Neil Harrap


No matter what your point of view on the smacking debate, to announce something as new when the police have always had discretion is the stuff of stupidity.

A. Mitchel


Some New Zealanders are now planning to leave the country to protect their children. The risks posed by the Bradford bill are just too great for them.

I despair for New Zealand, either John Key is thick, uninformed or philosophically in agreement with Bradford and Clark that the correction of children by parents should be illegal. The last seems to be the case because that is what he has endorsed, and is crowing about. Key said that on both sides of the debate there had been extreme positions taken. Why doesn't he name those he claims have taken extreme positions and explain why they are extreme? The whole National party fell into line, and United Future. Not a whimper of protest heard from any of their members. Were they whipped as Labour was? We need at this time a Winston Churchill, but clearly it won't be John Key who takes up the role.

Renton Maclachlan


Say what you like about John Key and Bill English, there is no doubt they are great communicators. When they realised that the 80% of New Zealanders who were opposed to altering Section 59 believed that the National party were of the same mind as themselves, they took immediate action to dispel this error. By aligning themselves with Commissar Helen's Marxist myrmidons, they ably illustrated that the most important thing in politics is retention of buttock space on the parliamentary benches.

A. M. Pemberton


The battle for the Bradford bill became a sickening political farce last Wednesday. First, readers of The Press were confroted with the news that Anglican bishops backed Bradford. Mid-morning came the news that John Key, leader of the National Party, had reached an accord with the Bradford-Clark bloc, and "reasonable force" would be deleted from Section 59 of the Crimes act. Not only would "reasonable force" be deleted, but the "rule of law" would be replaced by the arbitrary rule of the police. Then there was the astonishing "vigil" at Wellington's Anglican Cathedral prior to the parliamentary session at 2pm. What a mockery it made for the cathedral for the "vigil" to be attended by Bradford and Clark and various "heroic" Christians. In Parliament that afternoon, the best speech was delivered by Heather Roy. It was a traversty of justice that she was cut off mid-sentence, as she noted Section 194 and Section 195 of the Crimes Act ealt with cruelty to children. But ACT hit the nail on the head when Roy quoted the opinion of former ACT MP Stephen Franks that Key had been outwitted by Bradford and Clark.

The Question for me remains: with some 80% of New Zealanders opposed to the Bradford bill, why did John Key follow the parliamentary pied pipers – Sue Bradford and Helen Clark?

Sue Hunt


Clark and Bradford must be congratulating themselves on achieveing their aim to remove any legal defense in law from parents who smack, while making it appear they ceded a generous compromise tot he large democratic majority against it.

But now, any aggrieved ex-partener, estranged family member, interfering neighbour or crusading social worker only have to get a police officer to charge a smacking parent, no matter how light the smack was, and a jury will be forced in law to find that parent guilty as charged. If no charge is proceeded with, the investigatino process alone will have traumatised a good familiy, and the child will realise that they have their parents in their power. Thanks, Parliament!

A. F. Jenks

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

So what is an inconsequential crime?

Our American friends may have noticed the intense debate of New Zealanders regarding the "Anti-Smacking" Bill currently before parliament.

In simple terms, an intended amendment to the bill would have made it illegal for any parent to smack their child/children. A huge majority of New Zealander's, were outraged by this bill; ( see Lindsay step up to the plate.)

Such was the outrage, our lying/cheating government tried to fast track this bill through parliament, only to be cut off at the knee's by one of their member's who they had sacked a few weeks prior (I digress).

To cut to the chase, the amendment was eventually passed, aided and abetted by the leader of the opposition John Key. This was through an absolutely gutless capitulation of principles. He, who was more concerned with political polish, than upholding democratic principle.

The proposed bill removes a defence of reasonable force and thus effectively making criminals out of parents who smacked their children. The amendment gives police the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent, where the offence was considered "so inconsequential" there was no public interest in it going ahead.

One does not need to be in the legal profession to see that the amendment is a "bad law" I mean to say, why bother electing a government if it can not define its own laws and leaves it up to the police to decide.

I thought that making decisions is one of the key tasks that we pay them to do (apart from taking hugely expensive taxi rides whilst mere mortals wait in cold airport gyms).

Besides, where on the ballot paper does it say which cop you are voting for? The politicians realise that the police are better at making decisions than they are and both the Labour Party and National Party have acknowledged this by ceding the right of judgement to the police in this amendment.

As for the opposition leader John Key (Another Neville)...

His words were that the amendment was "to give comfort to parents, that they would not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their kids and to give police clear guidance they should not pursue "inconsequential" matters

Now if this hasn't been enough to make you vomit as yet, better go fetch a bucket before reading any further.

In today's news

A worker for Subway was sacked for sharing her cup of coke with a friend. Not only was she fired, the police have charged her for stealing a cup of coke to the value of $4.00. Furthermore, according to this news report, she spent 2 hours in a police cell!

How can this prosecution possibly be in the public interest? I would hate to hazard a guess of the cost involved in this prosecution.

Furthermore, if $4 worth of coke is not INCONSEQUENTIAL enough to be ignored, then the amendment is truly shown for what it is worth.

Anyone who was appeased with Key's capitulation; read this and weep!

The Facts About the Section 59 Proposal

From a letter in the Hokitika local paper.

1. Smacking has been legal under section 59. A parent was justified
(doing right before the law) if they used reasonable force for the purpose
of correction. This clause was never put in law to defend abuse but to make
sure that a reasonable corrective “smack” by a parent was not defined as
2. If Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill goes through it’s final reading
then it will be illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction
and if you do so you will be committing a crime.
3. The additional clause inserted by the party leaders does not change
this it merely gives guidelines to police in using their discretion which
they already do. It does nothing to prevent a private lawsuit by a member of
the public or for example a retributive other parent, or even the child
themselves, or CYFS.
4. It opens the door to children avoiding correction: “You can’t smack
me for what I did because that is assault!”
Truth, law, and logic have gone out the window over this issue and been
replaced by political point scoring, and deceptive public reassurance.
It is a dangerous precedent to make laws especially about personal and
family life and give assurances that police will use their discretion not to
fine you over inconsequential violations if it would be against the public
interest. This sounds like a dictatorship.
If this law goes through in as little as 6 weeks time it could be a criminal
offence to smack you child. It is not to late – ring MP’s, call a talkback
show, sign the petition for a referendum, but don’t give up and go to sleep.
80% of Kiwi’s don’t want this Bill and the politicians are ignoring them.
Let John Key know he’s either been conned or he has made a huge mistake, put
the pressure on Helen Clark by telling her you see this for what it is.

Buzz survey: NZ and Smacking

Data from
To veiw the graphs, and further information, click on the link above.

This survey looked at attitudes to Sue Bradford's Bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act (commonly referred to as the Anti-smacking Bill). In particular respondents were asked:
  • Whether they had heard about the Bill
  • The form of discipline that they found most effective for different age groups
  • Whether they thought that smacking was an appropriate form of discipline in some situations
  • Whether they thought that people who lightly smacked children would be prosecuted
  • About their opinion of the proposed changes to Section 59 of the Crimes Act

When this report was prepared a total of 4,735 had responded giving a sample error of plus or minus 1.4%(This is the theoretical margin of error, plus or minus 1.4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split)

Results at 3pm 2nd March 2007.



-          Most (99.4%) had heard of Sue Bradford's bill

-          Under half (43.3% do not think a change to the Act is necessary

-          Similar percentage (41.3%) support changes but not those proposed in the Bill

-          11.7% support Sue Bradford's Bill unchanged


Those who do not want changes to the Act are much more likely to believe that people who lightly smack their children in public are likely to be prosecuted (69.4%) than those who support Sue Bradford's Bill (3.8%) [1]

Those who think that a smack is the most effective form of discipline for children under 3 (76.5%) are also much more likely to believe that people who lightly smack their children in public are likely to be prosecuted than those who consider other forms of discipline such as time out (47.2%) or a verbal telling off (54.1%).


Smacking as a form of discipline

Most (87.6%) believe that smacking is sometime appropriate.

Around one-quarter (28.4%) think that a smack is the most effective form of discipline for children under 3 compared with one third (33.9%) for children aged 4-7 years and around one sixth (17%) for children aged 8-11

For children aged from 4 to 7, a smack was to be considered the most effective form of discipline with one-third of respondents (33.9%) choosing this.

Those fully responsible for children under the age of 12 (87.7%) are slightly more likely to believe that smacking is appropriate than those who never have the responsibility of looking after children (86.6%) [2]

Men (91%) are much more likely consider smacking to be `sometimes appropriate' than women (84.5%)

Overall the younger the age group the more likely they are to consider smacking as`never appropriate'.

John "Neville" Key

Muriel Newman: The Tail is Wagging the Dog

By Muriel Newman, from the New Zealand Center for Political Research website

The ramming through Parliament of the deeply unpopular anti-smacking bill is the clearest sign yet that under MMP the 'tail is wagging the dog'. As Iain Gillies wrote in an editorial in the Gisborne Herald last month: "Widespread antipathy to Sue Bradford's bill on parental smacking could unwittingly provoke renewed calls for a review of the MMP voting system. The motion does not figure much - yet - in either public discussion or the parliamentary debate, but may well get traction when voters consider to whom their MPs are beholden; their party hierarchy or the electorate." (To read the article click here>>>).

MMP was sold to New Zealanders as a system that would improve representative democracy in this country so that the views of the voters would hold more weight. Surely, no-one could have envisioned the situation we now find ourselves in whereby, in spite of overwhelming public opposition, a list-only minority party is being allowed to foist onto New Zealanders the sort of anti-family legislation that would make Karl Marx proud.

The anti-smacking bill is the brainchild of Green Party MP Sue Bradford. In a 2005 article entitled Vote Labour Now to Smash Capitalism Later, the Communist Workers' Group states: "A Labour government may need the backing of the Greens. Commentator Chris Trotter said that the New Zealand Greens are probably the most left-wing Green party in the world that has made it into political office. On the face of it there seems to be some truth in this with people like ex-Socialist Action League member Keith Locke and ex-Workers Communist League member Sue Bradford".  (See Aotearoa Independent Media Centre >>>) 

So unbelievably, because of the support of the Prime Minister, a former Workers Communist League member is now set to impose her ideology onto New Zealand. British journalist Lynette Burrows in an article How to control adults by means of 'children's rights' explains what's behind the ideology in this way:

"The question was always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.

"It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers. They are by training and tradition, Marxist, feminist and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light… The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be – but you wouldn't know it from official literature on the subject.

"Thus, anybody who wanted to further a Marxist, feminist agenda could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. It is not about the elevation of children's rights at all. It is all about the crushing of adult ones". (To read the article click here >>>

Complicit in this attack on parents is Helen Clark who, badly needing Green Party support after the abdication of Philip Field, has done everything in her power to get this anti-smacking law passed. She has prevented her MPs from exercising a conscience vote, she attempted to get the bill passed under urgency, she tried to adopt it as a government bill, and now, in what must be one of the greatest political coups in New Zealand's history, she has duped the National Party, United and New Zealand First into supporting a Claytons amendment.

Click here to read the rest of the article

BSA, Cindy Kiro complaints over TV3 Timaru Lady interview

an excellent article from

Goodness, where do we start with this one! (19 July 06)

How about from the start:

TV3's Campbell Live has been ordered by the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) to air a statement about exploiting a boy whipped by his mother with a riding crop.

Nice, working in the word "whip" there, while actually telling the truth about the instrument used for once. Sort of dishonest and honest at the same time…

In the upheld complaint, Dr Kiro said the child was being exploited by sitting with his mother during his interview.

He would have felt pressured to provide the right answers and the show "displayed a disregard" for the boy's rights, she said.

During the interview, the boy said he felt he deserved the discipline meted out to him.

He was pressured, all right!

The 14-year-old also said he would not smack his own children, though after the interview, the host said the boy only said this because he was afraid Child, Youth and Family (CYF) would take them away .

Remember: this case only came about because the boy's behavior improved. Then CYFS removed him, in spite of the criminal case being thrown out. Kiro is by her own admission the watchdog over CYFS, but here is attacking the very people she should be standing up for.

So should it surprise us that this boy is afraid to admit he would smack his kids, even 15+ years into the future?

For that matter, do you start to see how parents who have children now might be more than a little concerned about the power's CYFS wield, with the "watchdog" attacking them!

In another complaint, Dr Kiro said the boy's privacy was breached because those who were familiar with the case could identify him.

Funny how this report seems to gloss over this and the other two rejected complaints.

The commissioner also alleged the story was unbalanced, being firmly pro-smacking and against reform of child-hitting laws.

Furthermore, it was inaccurate, Dr Kiro said, because the mother was not a reliable source and that the journalist had made no attempt to investigate the circumstances of the case.

The mother's story was validated by the courts, solely on the word of the prosecutor. But Kiro doesn't like that story, so out come the insults and mud-flinging.

Oh, and how dare the media present the side of the case that the great Cindy Kiro disagrees with.

Kiro is a disgrace.

Forget about protecting children. Attacking the innocent, failing to do her job, crushing dissent. That's her day's work.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Parents criminalised for two smacks

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. Media Release 7 MAY 2007

Smacking Crime "Inconsequential" – Yet Police Still Prosecuted

The Society is deeply shocked that West Coast police goaded by several over-zealous and misguided ideologues in Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS), prosecuted a mature West Coast couple, Don and Anne Eathorne, for disciplining their 10 year-old CYFS foster boy for causing over $5,000 worth of damage (wilful vandalism) to farm equipment owned by their employer and a car owned by the boy's school principal. CYFS refused to cover costs when approached by the Eathornes, who ended up having to foot the entire bill. On 30 January 2006 Judge Colin Doherty heard in the Greymoth District Court from the Doherty's defence lawyer, Doug Taffs, how Anne in 2002, had applied two judicial smacks, using reasonable force for the purpose of correction, on two separate occasions, to the foster boy's open palm, as punishment for the "extensive" vandalism. The boy willingly complied to the "domestic discipline", genuinely apologised, accepted his wrongdoing and the appropriateness of the punishment, and desisted from all further acts of wilful vandalism. The Society believes the actions of the police in their application of "discretion" leading to the laying of charges, sound "warning bells" over the flawed Anti-Smacking legislation sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford and now supported by the National Party leader John Key. 

Judge Doherty, who accepted Mr Taff's description of the smacks (supported by facts from the deposition hearing) as being "benign" and had listened to his well-argued and convincing case that the foster parents should be discharged without conviction, issued them both with a conviction for assault against a child under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act (1961), fined them each $500 and Court costs of $130. It was accepted by the Judge that only Anne had been present at two brief discipline sessions with the 'victim' and yet Don too was criminalised for assaulting him, based only on the facts of the incident involving his wife. Neither Anne nor Don can ever work again with children in any professional role, let alone with foster children. CYFS, Director of National Operations, Ms Lorraine Wiliams denigrated both their characters when this story was covered on Sunday's TV One Documentary (9/04/06), when she affirmed CYFS' view that they were both child abusers.

While the Society acknowledges that a breach of CYFS policy guidelines (not to use corporal punishment) was committed by the Eathornes, it is more than surprising that both foster parents, who had an unblemished record with CYFS prior to their convictions, having previously successfully fostered over 26 kids in their home, were not simply dealt with by CYFS internally. The police were persuaded by evidence (evidential interviews), not proferred by the 'viictim' in the first instance, nor by CYFs or the 'victim' at the time of the smacking two years earlier, but first registered with CYFS two years after the smacking by another foster boy who heard about the incident from the 'victim' while he was staying short-term with the Eathornes, on a CYFS placement (commenced on 7/04/05). The Society is concerned that CYFS removed the 'victim' of the historic smacking, as well as his younger foster sister, from the foster parents, within just a few days of the claimed assault being reported to a CYFS social worker. The Eathornes have never seen the children again, children whom they loved and still do love dearly. CYFS have never bothered to return to the Eathorne's home and retrieve the children's toys and personal effects, over the 18 months since they were convicted of the assault in the Greymouth District Court.

This is a 'crime' involving two tiny smacks to the hand for "correction", administered on two separate occasions using a tiny wooden spoon, by a loving foster mother, and yet the police did not treat it as involving only "inconsequential force" (to use the spurious term now inserted into Bradford's flawed anti-family bill), and have charged the Eathornes when there seemed to be little, if any, public interest in doing so. However, the Judge chose to use the occasion in Court to deliver a dramatic warning signal to other would-be foster parent smackers, without any reference to the fact that s. 59 offers a legal defence to all parents and those in the place of parents (including foster parents) against spurious charges of asault laid by police who fail to apply proper discretion. He may made no mention of this statute in his judgment, perhaps thinking that it had no relevance to the Eathornes. They did choose to plead guity to asssault, so technically the defence in s. 59, which can only be used when one pleads "not guilty" to a charge, was in fact not open to them. They pleaded guilty, following implicitly the advice of their lawyer, and sincerely believing that they would be more than likely, discharged without conviction, based on, among other things, their unblemished track record with foster children over so many years.

The Society says that the interpretation of "inconsequential" force proposed by John Key, Rt. Hon. Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, now to be inserted into police discretionay guidelines when considering whether or not to lay a conviction for assault, will send shivers through the spines of good parents who are concerned about the flawed anti-smacking legislation being supported through parliament by most politicial parties.

John Key stated that his support of the amended anti-smacking bill was to "give parents confidence they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children." He has placed his trust in the police's interpretation of what "is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution" according to the new amendment. 

Yet the police's interpretation of "inconsequential" in this case involving a "benighn" smack shows that good parents are not able to share Key's optimism.

The Society believes that John Key and Helen Clark should make good their promise that parents will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children. This should be explicitly spelt out in the legislation - not left to the Police. This would avoid good parents coming under the weight and stress of an investigation by the police and CYF if a malicious or unecessary complaint is made against them.

  "Good parents deserve the protection of the law," says the Society President Graham Fox.

References see:

For additional Information see:

(1) "Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families". SPCS Media Release Friday, 23 March 2007, 5:15 pm

(2) TVNZ Sunday documentary that screened on 9 April 2006 (producer Chris Harrington TVNZ).

BSA Decision Re: Sunday item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon.

(4) Vast majority of complaints lodged against TV NZ by CYFS rejected.

John "Neville" Key: Peace in our time

Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 9 November 1940), was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940.

Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century in the popular mind internationally, because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich 29 September 1938. In the same year he also gave up the Irish Free State Royal Navy ports, in practice making it safe for German submarines to stay about 200 miles west of the Irish coast out of range of the Royal Navy, where they could pick off merchant shipping at will. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia on 13 March 1939, less than 6 months after Chamberlain declared "peace in our time".

Chamberlain had no idea of the deeper, more long-range malicious intentions with which he was dealing in the person of Hitler just as John Key apparently has little idea of the long-range agenda being hatched by Clark and Bradford.

or to be not so polite about it...

Grinning like a chesire cat, the appeasing fool emerged from the wolf's lair waving a worthless scrap of paper containing a seductive load of dribble signed by a known art-forger. "Peace in our time!" he declared - trying to look like both a future PM and an Emperor parading in a new set of clothes. In response, a hoard of over-sexed brainless lemmings - his adoring colleagues - unaware that the amendment he had signed was just an "inconsequential" piece of naked rhetoric that did not serve the "public good" - rushed headlong towards the media to declare their support for "their man". They all promised they would formally approve every one the art-forger's demands that had created the "Grand concilliatory concensus".