"Smacking Not an Offence" - Bradford

Family First Press Release, 29/Sept/08 - read entire article here.

In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.

In a media release from the Green party today, Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’

Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’


And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844

“Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”

Sue Bradford's Democracy

83% of Kiwis think the Anti-Smacking Law is a bad law.

Sue Bradford doesn't care what you think.

The Press on the Referendum

I'll just quickly run over this article and make a few comments in bold.
Petition earns referendum on `child-smacking' law - The Press

New Zealanders will be asked to vote on the so-called anti-smacking law next year.
So-called? Well, that was what the Green Party called it initially.

Parliament's Clerk of the House said yesterday that a petition organised by Christian political activists had enough valid signatures to force a referendum.
Hah, just couldn't help yourselves could you? Yes, the petition question was written by Sheryl Savill who works for Focus on the Family. But look at the huge support nationwide, from a huge variety of people and groups.

Justice Minister Annette King said planning had begun to hold a postal vote on section 59 of the Crimes Amendment Act.

"The advice to me has been that it should be a postal referendum, and my latest advice is that it will take until about mid-next year to organise such a referendum properly," she said.

An audit of the petition found that 310,000 of the 390,000 signatures were valid.

That represented 25,000 more signatures than the 10 per cent of the national electorate required for a non-binding referendum.

Parliament's Speaker, Margaret Wilson, is expected to present the petition to the House on Tuesday, after which the Government will have one month to announce a date.

The referendum question will be: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Petition organiser Larry Baldock, who founded the Christian-based Kiwi Party, said the vote should be held with this year's general election.

The Government has ruled this out, saying the petition had come too late and it would best be held as a postal ballot next year.

"It has been a long battle to assert the right of all New Zealanders to be heard on this controversial issue," Baldock said.

"Quite frankly, in a democracy it should not require so much effort. The referendum should be held at this year's election.

"None of the reasons being given by the Prime Minister for delaying it make any sense at all, and are simply a tactic for her to try to avoid this being an election issue."

Family First director Bob McCroskrie said the petition showed the strength of the opposition to the law.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford, whose child-discipline bill last year removed the defence of reasonable force from the Crimes Act, said she welcomed the ongoing debate.
Hah, did she? That's easy to believe.

"They put an enormous amount of effort, time and money into it, so it is not a surprise," Bradford said.

"We will continue to engage in the debate. It is all part of the process of changing the culture of violence in this country.

"The fact that these people are so determined to change the law back again just gives us more of an opportunity to educate people as to why we shouldn't be able to legally hit our children."

Bradford said the referendum question was misleading. "There is no such offence in New Zealand law as smacking. There never was and there isn't now. There is an offence of assault on a child."
Then why was your original bill drawn up as an "Anti-Smacking bill"?

She said that while the referendum was not binding, she would not trust a future National government not to change the law, despite the party's current support for the legislation after a last-minute deal with Labour.

"I've heard National MPs out and about basically dog-whistling to the Christian Right," she said.

National leader John Key has ruled out overturning the law if he becomes prime minister unless there was evidence of good parents being prosecuted.

Figures released by police have so far shown that has not happened.

Key did not return a call for comment yesterday.

Clark told Parliament in June that she had received "strong advice" from the Ministry of Justice that it was too late for a referendum to be held with this year's election.

She said the Government had accepted the ministry's advice that it would cause too much confusion, and a postal ballot next year was preferable.

The ministry said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m.

A previous petition to force a referendum was ruled invalid when it was found it had failed to collect enough signatures.
No, it was not ruled invalid, and it was not a previous petition. It was the same petition for which we were granted another 2 months - as is usual practice, to make up the short-falling.

Family First on Bradford Comments

Vigilance needed still on child abuse (should read Vigilance needed to keep smacking banned!)
Otago Daily Times 26 July 08
The repealing of section 59 of the Crimes Act was not "100% safe" (TRUE) and it was important to stay vigilant, Green Party MP Sue Bradford told those attending the Children's Issues Centre national seminar in Dunedin yesterday. "There is still an ongoing political battle and it is not completely won.(TRUE) " Ms Bradford is one of six speakers at the seminar, which is focused on moving on from the repealing of section 59.
Polls showed the law change was a major election issue for about 5% of voters (TRUE), Ms Bradford said. The "most powerful forces" working against the law change were those involved in the petition for a referendum on the issue (FALSE - IT'S THE HUGE PROPORTION OF NZ'ERS). There was no question the petition had been "amazingly successful" (TRUE) given that it was very difficult to meet the required 10% target, she said. "They have poured a huge amount of time and money into it. (TIME YES MONEY NO) " More signatures were collected for the petition after the first petition fell short (FALSE) when more than 5000 signatures were declared invalid (FALSE). A report on the validity of those further signatures was expected at the end of August.
"I feel sure some of the people who signed it then have changed their mind since (FALSE), but that doesn't negate the legality of those signatures." Any potential threat to the law change would depend on the make-up of the next government (TRUE). Her biggest concern would be any attempt to change the law to define an acceptable level and nature of violence, as that would send the message violence against children was acceptable (FALSE), she said. The role of academics and researchers in any future debate would be "incredibly important".
There was no evidence people were being "dragged off to court" for minor offences (FALSE) and she welcomed research presented at the seminar which showed 44% of voters were in favour of the new legislation (FALSE), she said. "While Family First are creating the perception 80% are against it, I feel this is much more in line and that the proportion is about 50-50. (FALSE)"
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/14996/vigilance-needed-still-child-abuse
Family First Comment: Note that there is no reference to the continuing rate of child abuse deaths, the skyrocketing rates of CYF notifications, and the continued horror stories of real child abuse happening where there is drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, dysfunction etc.

“The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
Sue Bradford – National Radio - 21 Dec 07
Read Family First Media Releases
Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ
Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts

Child Abuse Petition Submitted

Press Release: The Kiwi Party - May 14 2008. I will add a few comments in bold.

Time for a new approach on addressing family breakdown, family violence and child abuse

“Today marks the end of 14 months of collecting signatures for a CIR petition in my name to request a referendum on the question, ‘should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?’ The collection of signatures for Sheryl Savill’s petition, which is a separate question entirely, is ongoing and we have now collected approx 350,000 for that petition. I will resubmit those when we are sure we have sufficient to cross the hurdle of the audit process. Our goal is 380,000, see www.unityforliberty.net.nz for a regularly updated signature count.

Today I will deliver approx 300,000 signatures to the Clerk of the House of Representatives for my petition and we will now await (once again) a seemingly bizarre audit process to be carried out according to the CIR Act 1993.

Whatever the outcome of this process, 300,000 signatures represent a huge response from the people of New Zealand who have consistently expressed their concern at our deplorable child abuse and family violence statistics. Absolutely. 300,000 Kiwis have put pen to paper, saying that they are sick and tired of the child-abuse and family-breakdown which continues, unabated - despite the untold millions of tax-payers money that the Government continues to throw at the problem - in the form of Cindy Kiro (Children's Commissioner), and the Families Commission - as well as countless other beurocracies busy accomplishing nothing good.

After nearly nine years of a Government lead by Helen Clark and supported entirely or in part by Jim Anderton, Jeannette Fitzsimons, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters, there is not a single statistic that can be referred to that shows their ‘lame duck policies’ have worked. This is despite huge tax surpluses and a strong economy.

A clear example of this is that we now have the Minister of Social Development openly acknowledging her own department’s report that reveals the poor are worse off under a Labour Government than after the ‘mother of all budgets’ in the 90’s.

This petition and these signatures are calling for greater action on understanding and then addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

We begin our question with the call to “understand’, as that is the first step to solving any problem. Clearly this Government does not have any understanding of the real causes of our problems and has simply continued to keep bringing so many ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ type responses that there is no parking space left. What we really need are some solid fences constructed at the top.

Our social statistics reveal such systemic problems within our society that the Kiwi Party believes the Government should urgently appoint an independent Royal Commission to respond to this. Surely it is time to look for new answers and solutions?

Anti-smacking advocate and nanny state zealot Sue Bradford, now admits (contrary to her earlier claims) that her Anti Smacking Bill was never intended to address the causes of child abuse and reduce our awful statistics for child maltreatment deaths.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense now acknowledges that with 7 child deaths in less than a year, Bradford's Bill is a feel-good fantasy dressed up as a complete waste of time, unless of course Bradford's real plan was to deconstruct the traditional family unit." Wow, I completely agree Larry. A dangerous but brave question to ask.

Timaru Herald Editorial Mouthpiece for Anti-Freedom Government

By Simeon, with notes by Andy [A]

The Timaru Herald published an editorial today slamming the petition calling for a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law as a "a sideshow". The editorial then goes on to say that Sue Bradford's comment telling opponents of the law to "move on" is actually popular opinion.

But this article is wrong in the assumptions that it is making. Firstly it says that "National's last-minute intervention that the police would not pursue inconsequential smacking took away much of the objection and the bill was easily passed." No this took away NO objection to this legislation, if you look at recent polling then you will see that public opinion is very much the same.

In fact, just over a week ago, a small group of volunteers collected 5,800 signatures at the V8 Racing event in Hamilton. Ahem, sorry, what did you say? public opinion has changed? Don't make me laugh. [A]

Next it says "But while the petition attracted 324,511 signatures, only 267,000 have been deemed valid, well short of the 285,000 to force the poll". 267,000 is not far off 285,000 and is one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history.

"one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history." - how much is this editor being paid? He's just filling up paper with worthless points. It is a normal number of signatures to be submitted, and the audit is not bad news at all! Norm Wither's "law and order" petition lost 60,000 signatures in it's audit. [A]

Thirdly it says "But consider what has happened since the bill was passed. The worst fears have not been realised. We have not seen a procession of parents through the courts charged with assault in the name of child discipline -- there have been just five cases. Nor have we seen the law preventing the most extreme cases, with children still dying or being badly injured at the hands of their parents." That is five cases which did not need to happen. Five families have had unneeded police interference.

Of course "the worst fears have not been realised". I have been saying this from the beginning. The Labour/Greens government knows it would be suicide to allow the police force to administer this draconian law to it's fullest extent. No indeed, they will wait until (they hope) they get elected into Government again next year, and then will begin the regime of Government initiated home-invasion on thousands of good, caring family-homes. [A]

Fourthly it says "So what has happened? Until the research is done it is only guesswork to assume the legislation is producing behavioural change. Anecdotally, there appears to be greater awareness by parents of alternatives to physical discipline, which is a good thing." We will reap what we sow.

Perhaps it is a good thing, but it doesn't even begin to justify the introduction of such a anti-freedom law, against the will of the majority of the population (83%). [A]

Lastly it says "Politicians will welcome the prospect of no anti-smacking referendum at this year's election. It would be a sideshow to the far more serious main event, and yet could also be a rogue element in terms of colouring voters' intentions. It is time to move." Yes that is true, Helen Clark and Sue Bradford will welcome no referendum at this election because if we have one everyone will be reminded at the ballot box about what Labour and the Greens have done. But no it is not time to move on because politicians are our servants not our masters.

Why are you lot so paranoid, so beside yourselves with concern at the prospect of a referendum being held? [A]

Clerk Reports on Petition: 20,000 signatures to go

"Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures" screams the headline on the TV3 news site.

NewstalkZB picks up the story, picking up on comments from Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the Anti-Smacking bill. "The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum."

Stuff.co.nz presents a confused story, claiming that the petition organisers have been dealt a "major blow".

David Farrar at Kiwiblog tells it like it is.

"They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates. This is about normal off mory.

So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.

I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting."

Meanwhile, Bob McCoskrie doesn't have any time for the media hype, and gets to the main point, which is:

"the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents."

The Clerk of the House has disqualified 16,294 signatures - this comes as no surprise, despite the wild exaggerations from the mainstream media. In fact, this is a relatively low number of signatures to be crossed out, as we see in an excerpt from this article (23 Feb 08) from the Section 59 blog:

"In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures."

"We have already collected an additional 20,000 signatures" says Larry Baldock in his Press Release, 29 April 2008, “We were always concerned about the hurdles to be crossed in the audit process, said Mr Baldock, and for that reason we continued collecting signatures after we handed in the 324,511 signatures on Feb 29th."

Click here to download the petition form. If you haven't already, sign it, get your friends and family to sign it, and then send it to the address on the bottom of the form.

Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):

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

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

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

Cindy Kiro, "Children's Commissioner":

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

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

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

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

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

Jimmy Mason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Baldock & Bradford on Radio NZ

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

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

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

Audio from: www.radionz.co.nz

Latest study unreliable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 year old calls the cops on his father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Bradford said there were many alternatives to hitting children.

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

______________________________________________

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

Forum photos

Bradford.

The panel, left to right: Judith Collins (National), Pita Parone (New Zealand First), Secretary of ACT, Russell Fairbrother (Labour), Sue Bradford (Greens), Gordon Copeland (Future New Zealand) and Judy Turner (United Future)

Call for Kiro to step down

"Children's commissioner" Cindy Kiro uses child-abuse cases as fuel for her vision of socialization. "Clausen claims that theories of socialization are to be found in Plato, MontaigneRousseau and he identifies a dictionary entry from 1828 that defines 'socialize' as 'to render social, to make fit for living in society'"1. She tells of a constant stream of complaints from citizens saying that they are fed up with our shocking child-abuse statistics.

Instead of apologising to New Zealand, to every decent mum and dad and handing in her resignation after her doing such a shoddy job, she turns round and has the audacity to say "It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a difference". However, this is not the point that Kiwis are trying to get across to their anti-democratic government which doesn't listen to them. Stifled by layer upon layer of bureaucracy, we are kicked in the teeth and told that "With more investment in programmes and systems..." we can combat child-abuse.

Kiro states: "My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have received so that we can establish the best use of them." Why can't she leave us alone? New Zealanders didn't ask for imported Swedish laws, reeking of communism to further screw up our Country.

Sue Bradford states "Consideration should also be given to Childrens Commissioner Cindy Kiro's proposition that all children be tracked from birth, to ensure at least one external person or group has an eye on the child's welfare. The answer doesn't lie in making our welfare system even more repressive - especially when a Health Ministry survey released yesterday shows half of teenagers are 'victims of violence'," Ms Bradford says. 2.

These are dangerous, dangerous ideas and plans that these extremist, communistic Beaurocrats are working on. New Zealanders would do well to stay informed as we approach local body elections and then the general election.

1. from Wikipedia.org
2. from www.scoop.co.nz

Below is the article.
---------------------------------------------
New Zealand reaches child abuse tipping point

Thursday, 2 August 2007, 11:24 am
Press Release: Office of the Children's Commissioner

Children's Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, believes that New Zealand has
reached a tipping point and we will no longer tolerate the abuse of our
most vulnerable citizens - our children.

"This week, my Office has been inundated by contact from people of all
walks of life who have enough of hearing about yet an other abused
child. These people have something very important in common - they all
want to do something to help. They may have ideas on what needs to be
done. They may want to donate their time or their money. They may be
well-known New Zealanders who want to use their profile to raise
awareness of the issues and what can be done," says Dr Kiro."

"My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have
received so that we can establish the best use of them."

"It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a
difference.
I believe that we are moving from a situation of saying that 'someone
else should do something about this' to one of 'I want to do something
about this'."

"There is a place for individuals, families, communities, government and
society to all do something about this issue."

"We need investment in education and better health outcomes for children
and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with
government to deliver services that support children and families."

"I believe that the establishment of an plan for every child through an
integrated framework for children and their families that would provide
a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework
would bring a systematic child-focused approach to monitoring the
development of every child and young person in New Zealand through
co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting
families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full
potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child:
their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological
development."

"With more investment in programmes and systems and the goodwill and
actions of ordinary New Zealanders, I believe we can combat child abuse
and improve the lives of our children," says Dr Kiro.

The good, the Bad and the Ugly:

Repeal in Pictures

Clark: Prime Minister"I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle"
from www.investigatemagazine.com

Simon Barnet, MoreFM Radio

UNICEF lists the key factors for child abuse as: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. Smacking is not even mentioned!

Larry Baldock: Future NZ

New Zealand is a democracy! 80% of everyday Kiwis don't want Bradford's bill, so we will have a referendum!

Hone Harawira, Maori MP

Before white man came, we let our kids go wherever they wanted.

Bradford, Green MP

A light smack is child abuse!

The hug
With you all the way Sue...

The handshake
Welcome my son... Welcome to the Machine!

Katherine Rich, National MP
Section 59 let parents off for beating their children with planks of wood and horse-whips, to within an inch of their lives...

Cindy Kiro, "children's commissioner"
"well I think umm... if you know what a light smack is, [then there is] probably nothing much [wrong with it]"
from Campbell Live interview

John Key, leader of National Party
Peace in our time!

Unless indicated with quotation marks, captions are to be read as comments, not quotes.

Clark/Bradford: a dodgy agenda.

The ridiculous thing about this new law is that the Government permits you to smack your child. You may use force in a vast number of situations with your children. Any situation but a smack for the purpose of correction. What has Parliament got against correction?

Bradford/Clark are quite clear on their agenda. Their goal is that children would one day not be part of families, but all part of the state. They are desperate to remove authority from parents, and achieve this by increasing the power of the state (CYFS in this case).
--------------------------------

Here's a quote from Helen Clark which is the opposite of what she is saying now:

Helen Clark on Radio Rhema, 2005 interview with Bob McCoskrie

Helen Clark: A lot of people aren't comfortable with beatings but they don't want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.
Bob MCroskie: So you do not want to see smacking banned?
Helen Clark: Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.

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

And the quote from www.investigatemagazine.com where she states that children would destroy her lifestyle:

Helen Clark: “I’ve never had any intention of having a child. I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle. It’s inconceivable that I would become pregnant. I realise my attitude is unusual, but I have other interests which crowd out everything else, and I think I’d go around the bend if my small amount of spare time was taken up by children.

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

New Zealand: when 15% > 80% - this is Dictatorship

Helen Clark is now seeking to make Bradford's bill a "Government bill". This will mean that it will get the highest priority, enabling Labour and the Greens to rush the bill through Parliament - ignoring the massive outcry from the public.

If they do this, mark my words, it will be their downfall.

// "Public opinion says no - but she [Helen] says yes" - NZ Herald.

// "The childless Prime Minister thinks she knows better than the public" - Christine Rankin.

// "Some bill opponents are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children" - Helen Clark.

// "When 85 per cent of New Zealanders are opposed to this bill, we would be a pretty sick Opposition if we didn't do our best on their behalf," - Gerry Brownlee.

// Clark, Bradford, and their small bunch of out-spoken but dwindling bunch of supporters have said many times, "Smacking is illegal - it has been for 100 years". If this is the case, then why have my parents not been prosecuted - why is it only now that I learn that my family has been operating on the wrong side of the law since when Mum and Dad first smacked me?

//Ella Edginton said she was "disgusted" by the large number of "brainwashed children" brought along to "bulk up their numbers". Hmmm, the children I saw their didn't look as if they had been brainwashed Ella. Do children disgust you? You're just jealous that the Bradford supporters were few and far between. Only ONE Bradford supporter spoke up at the Christchurch march, and he didn't have anything intelligent to say.

New Zealand: Fellow Kiwis. When 15% is listened to, and 80% of our country's people's voices are ignored, we have to look around and see that something is wrong. The "Reds" are going down in 2008 - but until then, I am afraid, our *government* is nothing better than a Dictatorship. I am not going to keep quiet on this issue - I encourage you all to stand up - make your voice be heard.

I took some quotes and information from www.nzherald.co.nz

Implications of Bradford's bill for me

Hi, I am Andy Moore, and I am 20 and a half years old. I am a Christian.

Just lying in bed tonight, I began to think even more seriously than I previously had regarding the Section 59 debate. In ten years, I will quite likely be married, and have two or three children. Email me if you're the girl...

Now, let's say I head out into the backyard of my home and find my eight-year old son smoking dope with a couple of his friends. I have already warned him against the dangers of taking drugs, and have set the example by not smoking or anything. I have told him that if I do catch him taking drugs, there would be serious consequences.

"But daddy, Nandor Tanczos does it, and he's in the Government!"

Now, if Bradford's bill does pass, what sort of discipline am I going to give my son?

I can ask him if he would like to go to his room for time out. He need not respect me, because after all, I am only his father. He knows that I will not be allowed to pick him up and carry him into his room, because this would be child-abuse.

"Oh, it's not child-abuse Sue? Well, force is force. Who are you to say that parents may use force to remove a child from a dangerous situation, or to take a child into a room for time out, but not for the purpose of correction?"

Who the heck are you to say this Sue? - your pathetic reasoning infuriates me beyond reason.

Or if I find a teen-age boy getting a bit cozy with my thirteen-year old girl in her bedroom, when I have already told her that there is no place for behaviour like this in our family. What do you suggest I do Bradford? Any suggestions Clark?

When what she needs is a good wallop - (painful for a while, but not to cause bruising or bleeding at all) - all I can do is ask her to stay in her bedroom, of course I can't use force to get rid of the teen-age lad. I try to talk some sense into her, but she responds with: "Daddy, haven't you read the S.K.I.P. brochures?... You're not supposed to talk to me in this way. I can call CYFS if I want..."

This is not conjecture. This is what will happen if Bradford's bill is allowed to pass through Parliament. Stand up you Kiwis. Don't let our Government walk all over us like they are doing.

email your MPs, and start by visiting this website: www.politik.co.nz

More contradictions

Click here to read Sue Bradford's bill.

Part two of her bill reads:

"Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

(Subsection (1) of the bill outlines the cases where force may be used, ie. removing a child from danger, or preventing the child from engaging in offensive behaviour).

However, Sue Bradford has been recently saying...
"My bill doesn't ban smacking" and...
"the intention was never to criminalise parents who occasionally or lightly smack their children."

Helen Clark said in an interview with Bob McCoskrie, before last election,
a ban on smacking would "defy human nature". She also said "This is not a bill which outlaws smacking"

Our Prime Minister's statements do not agree with her vote on the bill however, because it is obvious that if section 59 is repealled, parents will be prosecuted. Maybe not in the first year - or two, but after that they will be.