Sweden's Smacking Law Hypocrisy

Sweden has been promoted by proponents of the anti-smacking bill as a benchmark for good child abuse/parental authority laws. However, the opposite of this is true. In this article, acclaimed Swedish family lawyer Ruby Harrold Claesson exposes the hypocrisy of the smacking law in Sweden.

On August 21, Sweden awoke to the first part of the government report that was commissioned to investigate the abuse of children who had been in state care between 1950 - 1980. The report was commissioned following the documentary "Stolen Childhood" that was broadcasted in Nov. 2005. (I showed it for you when we were at Renton's & Merilyn's home.)

Between 200 000 - 250 000 children were in foster homes and orphanages during the period 1950 - 1980. Today, many of them are suffering from mental disorders, others have broken relationships, poor education, low self-esteem, difficulty to find work or chronic unemployment, have become substance abusers and many are dead mostly due to overdoses, suicide or gang killings.

So far 62 persons have been interviewed by the commission. Another 120 persons are still to be heard. They have told gruesome stories of the abuses that they suffered in their foster homes or the orphanages in which they were placed. Light smacks and other forms of discipline that were acceptable before the passing of the anti-smacking law are not taken into account: only that which constituted assault or gross bodily harm and which under normal circumstances could have been prosecuted if the reports from the children and/or their parents had been heeded, have been recorded.

The former foster children tell of how they were beaten with brooms, leather belts, punched, deprived of food, made to eat food that they had vomited, sexually abused, insulted, pushed down stairs, held under water etc. Some of these crimes were committed after 1979 - the year of the passing of the anti-smacking law. The documentary about Ekbacken "treatment home" where more than 20 youngsters were placed between 1980 - 2003, (I showed that one too when we were at Renton's & Merilyn's home) showed how youngsters were removed from their parents care because they had been smacked, then placed at Ekbacken where they were severely abused.

It is quite interesting to hear the reactions of the head of the commission, Göran Johansson. "It was much worse than we had expected. None of us knew the full extent or depth of their misery," Göran Johansson told Dagens Nyheter. "We feel a sense of desperation, and indeed rage, with respect to the stories we have heard," he said.

"They tell of systematic abuse at the hands of those who were supposed to care for and protect them as children. There was everything from ruthless exploitation by means of physical labour to serious assault, psychological terror and rape," he added.

Maria Larsson, the minister of Health and Welfare said: "I am very upset over the fact that so many children were so badly treated while they were in state care in Sweden". "I feel numb when I read the report. At the same time it is necessary that these stories come out in the open so we can see what has been hiding in our Swedish history. It is a dark history, she said. (Sweden's dark history also includes the forced sterilisation of ca 60 000 mostly women from 1936 - 1976 when the law was repealed.)

The NCHR is pleased that the Swedish government is now in possession of the report into the conditions for the children who were former residents in foster homes and orphanages. It is however of utmost urgency that the government should investigate the conditions of the tens of thousands of children and young people who are living in foster homes today.

Neither the social authorities nor the police listen to the reports of abuse that the foster children, their parents or others make on their behalf. Not even reports made by lawyers are treated with any degree of seriousness.

I only hope that the government will not wait another 20 or 30 years to investigate the conditions of the children in the so-called "family homes". These children are suffering abuses similar to those unearthed by the foster home abuse commission.

See also Sweden to probe years of abuse in children's homes and Foster home child abuse worse than expected,

When good parenting becomes a crime

World Net Daily Exclusive Commentary | August 22, 2007

Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.

The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."

In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government

Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.

Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.

In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."

The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.

Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.

The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).

Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.

Labour MP says he knew Bradford's bill was a waste of time

from http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com

Just listening to Labour MP Dover Samuels calling in to Radio Live and vigorously regaling Jackson and Tamihere with his thoughts about these latest atrocities. He says he and a lot of other MPs knew that Sue Bradford's bill would make not one iota of difference. There are no academic solutions. There are no do-gooder solutions. And the Maori Party and their 'aroha' can go jump. There you go.

2 Comments:

He voted for the bill and I presume that he is saying that many of the others who disagreed with it voted for it as well.  This gives the public a little window of insight into what a bunch of lying, cheating, immoral people our leaders and law makers are.

Each country get the government it deserves. We have this bunch of clowns because, at election time, the population couldn't care less and appeared satisfied with the lot that offered the biggest bribe.  Samuels' admission is an indictment on the Labour Party caucus. They didn't, don't, and will never represent productive, modern New Zealand.

3 Questions that must be answered

from Craig Smith, Family Integrity
Click here for the full document
Click here for a copy of the new Section 59
Click here for a a copy of the Police Guidelines for the new Section 59

Number One: What Is Meant by "Correction"?
A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term "correction" is not defined?
B. Does Parliament need to define "correction" before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently "correction" used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of "correction" no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as "discipline", "training", "punishment" or "guidance"?
C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for "correcting" their children using a Police working definition of "correction"? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of "correction" once a body of case law is built up and precedents established?
D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that "correction" of a child is more than just "incidental to good care and parenting" (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of "good care and parenting"? Are the parent's beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law?
E. Is "correction" now not to be considered part of "good care and parenting" (Section 59 (1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all?
F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading "Preventing" it says, "force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child." Are parents now to understand that neither "discipline" nor "punishment" can be considered part of "good care and parenting" unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?

Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the term "Force" as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion or culture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong?
B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading "Preventing" it says, "force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child." What if the parent uses force after the event for the purpose of "preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage" at any time in the future "in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence" or "in offensive or disruptive behaviour" as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59?
C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading "Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting", it says, "The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential". This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)?
D. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?

Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?
A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail?
B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?

When good parenting becomes a crime .

Our Moral Foundation
Judge Roy Moore
World Net Daily Exclusive Commentary
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57264

When good parenting becomes a crime .

Posted: August 22, 2007



Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.

The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."

In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government

Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.

Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.

In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."

The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.

Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.

The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).

Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.

Everyday mums and dads now in the firing line

Source: Family First

NZ Herald August 14, 2007
When Karyn Scherer's 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door. But that's what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111. The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm. READ MORE

Karyn Scherer : No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking READ MORE
"I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right ."

First Govt. - now schools invading, legislating against everyday families

from www.northernadvocate.co.nz | 11.08.2007

Two Kaipara schools and a small playgroup have made a clear stand they won't tolerate child abuse in their community.

Aranga School principal Myle Ferris is challenging every New Zealander to lobby parliament for better resources to prevent such senseless and abhorrent acts and to increase sentences for those who commit them.

"Words cannot express my disgust at the cowardly, gutless behaviour of those who beat young children," said Mr Ferris.

Aranga School and Aranga Playgroup, along with Te Kopuru School, supported the nationwide three-minute silence at 12.12pm on Wednesday which acknowledged the death of little Nia Glassie, a victim of domestic violence.

Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment and what they should do if they felt unsafe or afraid.

"We have made them aware of their rights and have told them we are here for them if they need to talk about anything," he said. The school newsletter repeated the anti-abuse message.

"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities.

"It's time the Government and its agencies stepped up and acted to prevent future tragedies of this kind. We want the government to increase the penalties to abusers of defenceless children; we demand they work toward the removal of drugs from our communities, because we know that much of this abuse stems from substance abuse by parents."
------------------------

"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities." - Says who?

"Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment" - Nanny State

Ferris, Aranga school, your hearts appear to be in the right place. However handing over even more power to Nanny State is not the answer to our problem of Child abuse. Many of these Beaurocrats are social engineers, tinkering with our Nation's families, digging their hands deeper into our pockets and invading good, functioning families as we see in these two cases below "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and " No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".

The anti-smacking bill fear - the nanny state

from www.geekzone.co.nz | 14 Aug

This is not a technology blog post - be warned. It's almost a political statement. It is here to let our PMs know I am not a supporter of the so-called Anti Smacking-bill.

Why? Because it terrorises parents, spreading fear that a idiot neighbour (which I don't think we have any) or badly informed citizen can just call the Emergency services number and report a parent with "hearsay", for something that every child do, such as a tantrum or a bed time crying.

A good example is this story on New Zealand Herald, "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and "No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".

My daugther Isabella cries in the morning. She cries when she doesn't want to go to bed. She cries in the middle of the night to let us know she wants some milk. She can't speak yet, so she does one of the things she can to communicate with us. to catch our attention when we are not looking - because she's really good at baby sign language I must say, but it only works when we are looking at her, obviously.

I don't believe the anti-smacking bill will make child abuse in New Zealand go away. Parents who were accused of having killed children are not worried about what can happen to then if they smack a child - because they do worst things as we have seen in the latest stories of toddlers being taken to hospitals just to die a few days later.

That is not smacking. That's beating. That's abusing.

I told my wife one evening that I was thinking a police officer would knock in our door, and if that happen I would happily say "Great you are here officer. We need a baby sitter". Not really. We don't. And we don't need a nanny state that is worried with small things while people go around killing children.

Hundreds in Ashburton stand together against child abuse

This article from www.theashburtonguardian.co.nz August 9 2007

Inner town workers and shoppers joined together yesterday in East Street to observe three minutes' silence to re-enforce their desire for New Zealand to take action against its high levels of child abuse.

Hundreds of people across the Ashburton District stood in silence for three minutes yesterday as part of a national protest against child abuse.
At 12 minutes past midday, people left their places of work, parked their cars, came out of their homes in every corner of New Zealand, to send a clear message to abusive parents that the ordinary New Zealander has had enough.
The three minutes' silence was organsied by lobby groups Family First NZ, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and For the Sake of Our Children Trust.
The three minutes represented the three years of the life of Rotorua toddler Nia Glassie who died last week from injuries allegedly inflicted by members of her extended family.
The time of day was chosen as it signified the 12 children who die from child abuse each year in New Zealand.
In Ashburton schools and pre-schools also encouraged students to take part in the national protest.
For the Sake of Our Children spokeswoman Christine Rankin said the nationwide vigil had been a success.
Child abusers needed to be given harsher jail terms and prohibited from ever raising children again, she said.
"If they have (more children) they should be taken away immediately — remove the child as soon as it's born."
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar agreed with the call for tougher penalties for child abuse.
"We know deterrent sentences work; they've worked in seatbelts and they've worked in speeding, they'll work here as well."
He said he believed an urgent bill to increase jail terms for child abusers would appear before parliament shortly.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie said organisers deliberately planned the protest to be as simple as possible, so that wherever people were they could take a moment to reflect on how they could make a difference to the child abuse problem.
"Let's face it — the three minutes was a symbolic gesture, but it was really designed to change the mindsets of people, from pointing the finger and 'Who's to blame?' to 'How can I be part of the solution?'"

Nia Killed by Whanau

Great. Four more bags of nameless filth for the taxpayer to support in prison. A three-year old girl is dead. And what do these sewer-rats get? A laughably short "sentence" of "rehabilitation" from which they will be out on bail before you can say "Jack Robinson". It's time for the government to set an example, and for justice to be done. As if the Coral Burrows case didn't sicken you enough, we now have four "whanau" or family in on a horrific and systematic torture and finally murder of a helpless, innocent little child who was in their care.

Bring back the death penalty. These lowlife deserve nothing better than life-time hard labour, or more ideally, 20,000 volts through their system and then bury them in cheap coffins made from pinus-radiata.

How many more little children need to be brutally murdered and molested?
How many more stupid, unworkable pieces of legislation that do more harm than good need to be pushed upon everyday New Zealanders?
How many more beurocrats such as Cindy Kiro and Sue Bradford do we need telling us that "smacking escelates into child abuse"?

The following excellent article on such a terrible event is from this website.

Michael Curtis (L) and William Curtis

Oriwa Kemp (L) and Michael Pearson

ALL MURDERERS-ALL DRUNKS-ALL DRUG TAKERS-CHILD KILLERS-ALL WHANAU.

Nia Glassie's step-grandfather allegedly wrapped a scarf twice around her neck, then lifted her off the ground and strangled her with it until she turned purple.
After 10 seconds, he is said to have thrown her to the ground and verbally abused her when she cried.
These were among new details of the abuse allegedly suffered by the 3-year-old revealed yesterday.
They surfaced at a bail hearing for three of the five people accused of abusing the toddler.
All three were denied bail amid a heavy police, media and family presence in the Rotorua District Court.
Judge Chris McGuire said part of the reason he refused bail was because the trio and the victim came from the same family, and there was a risk of interference with witnesses.
"For now, the victim herself, Nia Glassie, is silent forever from giving her own views. It does seem to me that child victims may on occasions like this deserve a voice beyond the immediate family."
Nia died in the Starship hospital last Friday after eight days in a coma with head and abdominal injuries. Her cousin, Michael Pearson, 19, and 17-year-old Oriwa Kemp, who is the partner of Nia's stepfather's brother, were first to apply for bail.It is alleged that they and Nia's stepfather, Wiremu Curtis, 17, and his brother, Michael Curtis, 21, assaulted Nia.
Judge McGuire said the four were allegedly responsible for "a series of events of cruelty and hurt to a very young child" which included Nia being "locked in a clothes dryer and the clothes dryer turned on".
He said two children were witnesses and had provided evidence to police but he suppressed their identity to protect their privacy. A neighbour had also seen Nia picked up by a leg and thrown at the clothesline by the group.
She was allegedly spun from the line by her ankle until she fell off and was also seen running around on the roof of the house while the adults looked up and laughed.

There was also an allegation she was left at her kohanga reo in a filthy state and smelling of cannabis. (WHY DIDNT THEY REPORT THIS FACT?) The judge remanded the two in custody until a pre-depositions hearing on September 27. Pearson consented but Kemp - who kept her face to the ground for most of the 90-minute hearing - did not and the judge ordered her to reappear on Tuesday. He also denied bail to William Curtis, 47, Nia's step-grandfather, who is charged with assaulting her and injuring her with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.Curtis' alleged offending relates to an earlier period and police say that, unlike the other four, he is not likely to face further charges.The allegations that he abused Nia were made by his daughter, who said he would walk up to Nia and push her on to the ground or into the wall, had slapped her face and threatened to stomp on her head.Gasps could be heard in court as Judge McGuire related the incident with the scarf, saying it had led to the grievous bodily harm charge. Curtis consented to be remanded in custody for a predepositions hearing on September 27.A bail hearing for Michael Curtis will be held next Wednesday. Wiremu Curtis is due in Auckland District Court on Monday.

Garth George: Weak, stupid responses to the evil of child abuse

5:00AM Thursday August 02, 2007
from www.nzherald.co.nz

Garth George

The merciless abuse of two Rotorua tots is not a scandal. That is far too mild a word to describe such atrocities.

Nor is it enough to call these a national disgrace or national shame. They are both, but the nearest anyone has come to an adequate description is Michael Laws who, writing on Sunday, described them as "evil".

He is right, but I'll go further: they are positively satanic, for only the Prince of Darkness could so corrupt a society that it could breed Homo sapiens who get sadistic pleasure in torturing and injuring their own young.

And take it from me, the Devil is just as alive and kicking today as he was in Old Testament times. He remains, after all, the prince of this world. What is a scandal are the nonsensical knee-jerk reactions of politicians and others and the ideas they come up with.

This has happened before several times, the last the furore that followed the deaths last year of the Kahui twins. But as Peter Dunne says, all that has been achieved is "a large amount of hand-wringing and navel gazing".

The stupidity of the Government's first initiative is almost incomprehensible. It proposes to have all women visiting public hospitals asked about family violence. What that hopes to achieve is beyond my grasp.

Acting Social Development Minister Steve Maharey says frontline health workers in hospitals will try to find out whether there is violence in a family and whether any kind of assistance can be given.

This is preposterous, and if those frontline health workers have a grain of sense they will not have a bar of it.

Otherwise, they'll wear it, for I can imagine the reaction of a number of my female friends if they were asked such a question when turning up at accident and emergency for treatment, for instance, of a cut finger.

And imagine what such questioning might do to a woman who has been admitted to hospital having been diagnosed with a dread disease and who is in a state of acute anxiety, fear or even shock?

In any case, the last thing the very women who are targeted by this absurd proposal are going to do is to admit to anything to someone they don't know and probably don't trust.

And rightly so. To whom do these inquisitive front-line health workers report if their suspicions are aroused? To some social worker, perhaps, who might misconstrue the patient's responses and try to interfere when no interference is necessary?

What about privacy concerns? Are communications between patients and medical professionals no longer privileged?

Meanwhile Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro throws up her hands in horror and rabbits on about the need for educational programmes. Which is all very well, except that the sort of mental retards who abuse and kill children are ineducable.

Then there's the Maori issue, for there are five times as many Maori children abused and killed each year than in any other ethnic group.

Maori Party leader Pita Sharples whines that he feels ashamed and guilty over these latest abominations but in the next breath insists - in spite of all the evidence - that child abuse among Maori is not a problem that can be reduced to ethnicity.

Wrong, Dr Sharples. If Maori are killing Maori children then it could well be an ethnic problem and it is time that he and the entire leadership of the Maori race took ownership of it.

Maori activists are always crying out to be allowed to find Maori answers to Maori problems. Well, here is one of the biggest problems facing Maori today and their leaders had better get off their butts and find some answers.

And I mean answers, because all we have seen up to now is the usual - trying to apply sticking-plaster solutions to symptoms instead of diagnosing and organising treatment for the causes. These are always much more difficult and expensive to treat but, that aside, the trouble is that most of those in political, social and ethnic leadership wouldn't recognise the root causes if they jumped up and bit them.

Things like the breakdown of families (whanau included), neighbourhoods and communities. Poverty and welfare dependency running from generation to generation. An exploitive low-wage economy. A nanny state that interferes with parenting. A disinclination to enforce the laws on school attendance. A drinking age that's too low and a drug supply that seems to grow exponentially. Continuous sex and violence on television and in movies. And a public morality that says anything goes, including open-slather abortion.

That's just some of them. And even if by some miracle our leaders did begin to understand that these sorts of things lie at the root of our national malaise, it would still take a least a generation to even begin to fix them. Then again, perhaps it's already too late.

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.

Direct Democracy Party: "The Village" killed this child

Direct Democracy Press Release | 4 August 07
this article from www.ddp.co.nz

"It is time for the media, social service agencies, and the community at large to stop buying into the lie of "it takes a village to raise a child" says the Deputy Leader of the Direct Democracy Party (www.ddp.co.nz), Steve Taylor.

"It was this utopian "village" that was responsible for killing Nia Glassie, just as it was this same utopian village that has resulted in the deaths of so many other children in New Zealand. It does not take a village to raise a child: it takes two loving and committed parents within the empirically safest family unit available – the nuclear family" says Mr Taylor.

"Whenever there is a crisis such as the Nia Glassie case, the media perform the same toxic dance with the devil: they go to the very people who have no answers or solutions to offer: people like the Children's Commissioner; University academics; CYF; Women's Refuge; or a plethora of state funded agencies and spokespeople. The media then report untested ideological claptrap from these same people as if the content was on a par with the Ten Commandments".

"When a society, (aided and abetted by Government) intentionally and consistently undermines natural law, then the consequences for doing so are plain for all to see".

"Parents have been marginalised and dismissed by minority-motivated legislative intent, undermining their natural authority in the home; all family forms are considered of equal value in terms of bringing up children, when the science is unequivocal that this is not the case; placing abused children within families that have fostered and thus sanction such abuse is an accepted "best practice" of Child, Youth, and Family; actively removing fathers from the lives of their children is championed in Law and often facilitated by the Family Court; a morally relative-based fear of placing any "stigma" or "judgement" on those who rightly deserve to be both stigmatised and judged has resulted in any societal behaviour essentially being deemed "contextual", as opposed to "bad and wrong" behaviour being appropriately labelled "bad and wrong".

"This Alice-in-Wonderland perspective that seems to have integrated itself into the national psyche needs an antidote – as a start society and its leaders as a whole needs to start siding with reality, as opposed to ideological fantasy, when looking to address issues such as child abuse and family breakdown".

"The "takes a village" concept needs to be consigned to the scrapheap of failed, misguided, and dangerous interventions - the "takes a village" concept never has worked, and never will work. Rather, empowering individual families to get their own house in order is the answer to the problem - absent of invasive and intrusive state intervention deceptively packaged as a "village" says Mr Taylor.

Anti-Smacking Law Diverting Police Resources From

Friday, 3 August 2007, 12:22 pm
Press Release: Family First
www.familyfirst.org.nz

The anti-smacking law is wasting valuable police time and resources when police should be focusing their energies on actual child abuse like the two recent Rotorua cases.

A Howick-Otara police family violence coordinator has highlighted a case of an 11-year-old calling 111 and complaining to the police after being corrected by his parents. The police say he had learnt about the law at school and was misinformed.

"The anti-smacking bill has placed healthy and reasonable discipline into abuse categories and police are now wasting time having to investigate complaints of what is simply appropriate and reasonable parental correction," says Family First National Director Bob McCoskrie.

"The police should be focusing their energy on investigating drug and alcohol offences, domestic violence, violent crimes and actual child abuse, rather than being distracted by complaints from children who don't like correction and boundaries from their parents."

Similar cases have surfaced in Sweden including a recent case of a 6-year-old ringing the police because she was angry at her mother for not being given a handbag like her mother's. Police time was wasted investigating the malicious claim.

"Although we want children to speak up when there is violence in their homes, the anti-smacking law has resulted in appropriate parental correction being interpreted as 'parent assault'and having to be investigated. Not only are parents confused by the law, but children are too," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Good parents are being targeted by this flawed law, diverting our attention from the at-risk families we should be working with."

Marc My Words: Child Abuse Part Of Wider Problem

Friday, 3 August 2007
Press Release: Marc Alexander

In the wrong hands an article on child abuse could be rolled up as a weapon

If there was a standard theme throughout the last week or so, it was the issue of child abuse. Again. Yes, we are horrified by the inhumanity exposed within a family who saw fit to throw blocks of wood at three-year-old Nia Glassie in a sand-pit; strung up like a rag-doll on the clothes line; and tossed into a tumble dryer like a woolen sock. This is our outrage du jour. We've had them before and, despite the ridiculous optimism of Sue Bradford's determinedly anti-family 'Anti-Smacking legislation' to "send a message"; it has conclusively proved its lack of worth. Abusive parents over-whelmingly ignored both her "message" and the subsequent law change. Nia's abuser's actions carried on unperturbed and brought to a halt by the embarrassment of being caught...

Read the rest of the article here.

Letters to the Editor: The silence is deafening

Apologise, Bradford

The silence from member of Parliament Sue Bradford over the abuse of the three-year-old child in Rotorua is deafening. We surrendered the right to discipline our children by the application of timely force to the posterior of our loved ones. We also granted the Government the right to enter our homes and to discipline adults who breached this non-violent approach to discipline. We wre told that it would prevent child abuse. I take it that, by way of apology, Bradford will explain how her amendment failed this child, and that as a mark of her acknowledgement she will step down as an MP.

I could also wake from my dream.

Dennis Mardle

---------------------------------
Yes, Dennis, very well put. However I would not say that "we surrendered the right to discipline our children". The fact of the matter is that the Government, Parliament in-fact rode rough-shod over 83% of decent, orderly, law-abiding citizens, pushing it's ugly barrow that is social-engineering.
---------------------------------

Where's the outrage?

The Prime Minister's silence is deafening. Where is the outrage? We have a Prime Minister who publicly declares her outrage at an ill woman's demise because the power was turned off. We have our Prime Minister attending this unfortunate woman's funeral. We have people marching on the street with placards against a power company. We have a little girl brutally and systematically tortured - where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We have monsters put away for a minimum four years parole for the torture and murder of a boy. Where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We should all be marching on the streets for that over-used phrase, tougher sentencing. Send the message to our judges:

we will not put up with this.

Catherine Mulder

These two comments taken from The Press 31 July 07, Letters to the Editor.

Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

Media Release - Family First NZ | 27 July 2007

Family First NZ is joining with For the Sake of our Children Trust in calling for an official Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ.

The call comes after the horrific case of a Rotorua child fighting for her life as a result of abuse. Her step-father and other household members have been charged with assault.

"The ban on smacking was simply an admission by politicians that they could not and would not tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by recent CYFS and UNICEF reports," says Bob McCoskrie of Family First.

"The 80% plus of NZ'ers who opposed Bradford's bill are not people who were demanding the right to "thrash and beat" children as suggested by Helen Clark. They were simply kiwis who were exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed child welfare groups were more interested in targeting good parents and light smacking than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty, and weak family ties."

"The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions."

"An Otara couple who could be out of prison in only four years for the recent horrific abuse of their three year old shows that we simply aren't placing enough emphasis and resources on sending a clear message to child abusers that their actions are unacceptable. These type of people probably think section 59 is the main road into Wellington."

Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:
June 2007
* Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries
* 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative
* 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.
* Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.
July 2007
* Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months
* Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P
* 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse allegedly by stepfather and extended family

"This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse."

"An independent Inquiry would be an important first step," says Mr McCoskrie

The auction for the Timaru Lady cane

Oh, give me a break. There is nothing at all wrong with the Timaru Lady listing the cane on Trademe for sale. It's a piece of New Zealand history, and maybe someone wants it more than her. And likewise, there's nothing wrong with anyone bidding on the cane. Bradford was quoted as saying:"It's a real tragedy that something that's been used to beat a child is being glorified and sold for profit". The cane is hardly being glorified. And this website is not a "pro-smacking site".

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

This article from www.stuff.co.nz
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 26 July 2007

Green MP Sue Bradford says she is appalled that a cane linked to a notorious child discipline case has cropped up for sale in an internet auction.

The MP who forced a rewrite of laws governing smacking described the Trade Me sale as "ugly", particularly because someone was seeking to gain from a child's pain.

The implement, once wielded by a Timaru mother, is being marketed as "the cane that changed the law".

The woman, who has name suppression and is believed to be the seller, was acquitted in 2005 of assaulting her 13-year-old son with a riding crop and a bamboo cane.

What became known as "the Timaru horsewhip case" proved a rallying point for those on either side of Ms Bradford's controversial anti-smacking law.

"It's a real tragedy that something that's been used to beat a child is being glorified and sold for profit," she said yesterday.

"It's a real indictment on the person selling it. Even though a court let them off, it was that type of case that lay behind a lot of my motivation for the bill."

By 6pm yesterday, the auction had attracted only three bids.

The top bid of $5 was lodged by Andrew Moore, a self-described "Christiana/student/entrepreneur" from Christchurch and a contributor to pro-smacking site.

The tongue-in-cheek blurb for the auction said the cane would suit a range of purposes.

"It could become a cop and go on a stake out!! ... It could become an Silver Fern so they can continue to cane the Aussies ... It could join the American Army ... I hear they're looking for weapons of m'ass destruction!"

The cane was listed under the user name "come-a-cropper", from Timaru.

Family First director Bob McCoskrie said he understood it was being sold by the mother.

"I'm not sure if she's making a political point or fundraising for legal costs."

The woman and her husband are facing another trial for alleged assault of another son.

In April, the woman displayed the cane and her riding crop in a video posted on YouTube.com.

"Public Health Association" spin-doctored "research"

The "Public Health Association", (whoever they are), have released a poorly construed piece of misinformation. They title their "media release" Link Between View of Children, Physical Punishment. They've based this statement on what they refer to as "research". This "research" was the analysis of about 170 submissions to the select committee on the issue of the repeal of Section 59. The sub-title they have given the "media release" is Study Indicates Link Between View of Children as 'Developing Adults' and Support for Physical Punishment . In the article they state: ...submitters who viewed children as what have elsewhere been called "human becomings". Why can't they just tell us what the submitters actually viewed the children as, instead of this warped propaganda?

In the sub-title of the article, they equate 'Developing Adults' with 'Human Becomings' however the two terms have different meanings. While the first term appears to be more reasonable, the second term indicates a belief that children are not entirely human.

Then, based on 170 (or fewer) submissions, (conceivably specially selected from the total pool of 1700 submissions), the "Public Health Association" tells the media: "The research indicates there may be a need to look at people's most deep-seated beliefs about children and childhood, before their beliefs about physical punishment and discipline can be addressed".

"We found a link...", "There was a link...". What a load of rubbish. You don't "find links" between statistics based on just a handful of submissions. And then to have the effrontery to publish their results as "research", in a media release, hah, it blows your mind.

Referring to the above statement, "Ms" Russel says: "One place where this could be explored is in parenting classes. Discussions about how parents view children and childhood would be a good place to start us thinking about how we go about parenting them."

OH YEAH, that's what we want. We want a bunch of socialistic, beurocratic, (childless) yuppies shoving copious numbers of their "the experts say..." quotes down our throats.

Below, for your entertainment and/or information, I have reproduced the "media release", in full.

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

Link Between View of Children, Physical Punishment Thursday, 5 July 2007, 3:24 pm
Press Release: Public Health Association n MEDIA RELEASE
Study Indicates Link Between View of Children as 'Developing Adults' and Support for Physical Punishment

Embargoed to 3.15pm, Thurs 5 July

A Victoria University study has concluded that people who view children primarily as developing humans are more likely to support the use of physical punishment to discipline them.

Researcher Marie Russell told the Public Health Association conference at Auckland University today that an analysis of some of the submissions to the select committee on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act indicated submitters who viewed children as what have elsewhere been called "human becomings" tended to support the retention of section 59.

"Those who saw children as human beings in their own right tended to support the section's repeal", Ms Russell told the public health workers.

Section 59 of the Crimes Act formerly allowed people charged with assault of their children a defence of using reasonable force for correction. Its repeal passed in May and came into force on June 22.

"We analysed about 10 percent of the 1700 submissions to the select committee. We found a link between views of children as 'developing adults', and support for physical discipline. There was also a link between a view of children primarily as human beings and support for the repeal of section 59".

"The research indicates there may be a need to look at people's most deep-seated beliefs about children and childhood, before their beliefs about physical punishment and discipline can be addressed".

"One place where this could be explored is in parenting classes. Discussions about how parents view children and childhood would be a good place to start us thinking about how we go about parenting them." Ms Russell said.

Labour MP corrects naughty child with a smack in shopping mall

MEDIA RELEASE
30 June 2007

Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.

Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.

"We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances."

"It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances."

"However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated."

"The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF's for possible investigation and intervention."

"That's how farcical this law is," says Mr McCoskrie. "Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children's Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe's actions totally unacceptable."

But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.

ROTFLMHO.