this from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00297.htm
Friday, 23 March 2007, 9:54 am Press Release: Family First Lobby.
Labour's decision to attempt to ram through the 'anti-smacking' bill under urgency has revealed that this private members bill is now a Labour bill in all but name.
Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First says that this action, as well as Labour MP's being told how to exercise their conscience, is ample proof that the criminalisation of good parents is a clear agenda of the Labour party leadership.
"The Prime Minister can no longer hide behind Sue Bradford as sponsor of this bill," says Mr McCoskrie. "It is unheard of for a private member's bill to be put into urgency, but this shows the desperation by the Prime Minister to get this legislation rammed through before her MP's hear the voice of their constituents during the Easter recess and change their vote."
Mr McCoskrie says that the Labour MP's must be finding this incredibly difficult, especially as they campaigned before the election that it was a conscience vote. Electorate based MP's should be concerned about a voter backlash at the election next year.
"It is ironic that Labour have legislated themselves to be innocent over election spending, yet are willing to pass legislation that criminalise and threatens every good family in NZ. To make a light smack a crime shows just how out of touch this government is."
Family First calls on all National, Maori Party, United Future and NZ First MP's to immediately withdraw their support for the bill.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill
from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00481.htm
Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:31 am - Press Release: ACT New Zealand - Heather Roy
Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.
"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.
"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.
"The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.
"ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill.
"Child abuse is already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently inadequate. This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting", Mrs Roy said.
Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:31 am - Press Release: ACT New Zealand - Heather Roy
Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.
"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.
"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.
"The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.
"ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill.
"Child abuse is already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently inadequate. This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting", Mrs Roy said.
Heather Roy on Anti-Smacking Bill
this from http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2007/03/heather-roy-on-anti-smacking-bill.html
23 March 2007
ACT MP Heather Roy is not impressed with Helen Clark's plans to "fast track" the anti-smacking legislation.
From her latest press release
Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.
"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.
"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and
the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.
The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.
ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill".
And I (Andy Moore) say: "good on you Heather - you're just fantastic!"
23 March 2007
ACT MP Heather Roy is not impressed with Helen Clark's plans to "fast track" the anti-smacking legislation.
From her latest press release
Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.
"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.
"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and
the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.
The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.
ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill".
And I (Andy Moore) say: "good on you Heather - you're just fantastic!"
Bradford Panicking
this from http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/sue-bradford-panicking/
23Mar07
Sue Bradford was on Morning Report, and she was clearly panicked. She
was talking about a mile a minute, and didn't even pull out her usual
bull about the bill not banning smacking.
They also played a clip of Dr Cullen in the house, who fell over his own
words owing, presumably, to his nervousness.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/government_panicking_over_smac.html>
DPF makes some excellent points:
The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by
the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary,
possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining
stages under urgency.
23Mar07
Sue Bradford was on Morning Report, and she was clearly panicked. She
was talking about a mile a minute, and didn't even pull out her usual
bull about the bill not banning smacking.
They also played a clip of Dr Cullen in the house, who fell over his own
words owing, presumably, to his nervousness.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/government_panicking_over_smac.html>
DPF makes some excellent points:
The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by
the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary,
possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining
stages under urgency.
Labour lacks numbers to rush bill; Rangiora March report (audio)
Labour won't be able to rush bill through (Audio + story)
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Govtfacestoughtaskinpassingantismackingbillunderurgency/tabid/209/articleID/23787/Default.aspx
Report on the Rangiora March (Audio + story)
http://www.tv3.co.nz/200peoplemarchagainstantismackinglegislation/tabid/209/articleID/23786/Default.aspx
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Govtfacestoughtaskinpassingantismackingbillunderurgency/tabid/209/articleID/23787/Default.aspx
Report on the Rangiora March (Audio + story)
http://www.tv3.co.nz/200peoplemarchagainstantismackinglegislation/tabid/209/articleID/23786/Default.aspx
Labour Govt Most Arrogant in NZ History
- NZ Govt democratic: Yeah Right!
- Labour desperate to take hold control of our children
- NZ Families at risk; Not Just Children!
- Kiwis: Wake up and watch Labour's nanny state remove parental rights
- Stop the greens from taking your parental responsibilities away.
- It is not anti the smacking bill; it's the anti parent bill.
- Not only no smack; No correction either.
- Bradford: "We will not stop parents from disciplining their kids" Yeah right!
- Helen Clark gets the deputy to do her dirty work while she greases George Bush.
- Parents: Stop govt interference and control now.
- Smacking is NOT CHILD ABUSE, BRADFORD
- Listen to the majority; Children need correction.
- CYFS cannot bring children up; nor can govt. Parents know what's best for their kids and so do grand parents.
- Govt cannot love our kids or nurture and must not dictate how we bring them up.
- David Benson Pope: "Don't smack your kids- But you can shove a tennis ball in their mouth" He abuses
- our kids and he wants to tell us that smacking is wrong.
- What is really behind this bill: Parental and Nanny State Control.
- Good parents discipline their children. NZ Govt Advocates Bad Parenting.
- Does NZ First support Labour's desperation? Lets see.
- NZ Democracy: Bullocks
- WWII soldiers fought for freedom and their kids gave it away.
- Clark & Bradford: We are not anti smacking. Yeah Right! True. They are anti discipline!
- Sue Bradford says we cannot smack our kids but she is ok if you ruffle up the cops in a protest. How many times has she been arrested?
attempt to rush Section 59 repeal through Parliament set to fail.
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10430358
5:00AM Friday March 23, 2007
A Government attempt to fast-forward Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial smacking bill looks set to founder, with New Zealand First unlikely to support Parliament taking urgency to push it through.
Urgency is taken for important business and it is highly unusual for it to be taken for a private member's bill, let alone such a bill sponsored by another party's MP.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen approached Ms Bradford to gain her approval for the extraordinary measure, before talking with United Future leader Peter Dunne and New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown.
Opinions within each of those parties is divided on the bill, and it seems likely neither will support urgency being taken.
Mr Dunne supports the bill, but United Future's other two MPs oppose it. Last night he said the party would oppose urgency being taken as the bill did not need to be debated hurriedly.
Mr Brown said New Zealand First's caucus would vote on the suggestion next week. He would not comment further, but with two MPs for the bill and five opposed, it seems doubtful that the urgency motion will gain New Zealand First support.
Those 10 votes, plus the 51 from MPs already opposed to the bill, should see the urgency motion defeated.
Yesterday Dr Cullen would not confirm if the Government was considering the move.
The Maori Party, whose support for the bill is vital for it eventually passing, confirmed it had also been approached by Dr Cullen. Its caucus will discuss the issue next week.
The bill has the numbers to become law, but its passage has been stymied by delaying tactics by opponents. Debate on the committee stages of the bill, which will effectively outlaw smacking, began on Wednesday last week. It proceeded at glacial pace, thanks to swathes of amendments and its opponents taking every opportunity to speak against it.
The bill is due to return for debate next Wednesday, but at its current rate of progress a final vote to make it into law may not happen until May.
National said the urgency motion showed Labour was desperate to rush the bill through.
"This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue," National leader John Key said.
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.
The bill as it stands allows parents to use reasonable force to protect their child or others from harm, or to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. However, it would not allow parents to use force for punishment.
Ms Bradford said: "Any sensible reading of the police guidelines on prosecution will show that police will exercise their discretion."
5:00AM Friday March 23, 2007
A Government attempt to fast-forward Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial smacking bill looks set to founder, with New Zealand First unlikely to support Parliament taking urgency to push it through.
Urgency is taken for important business and it is highly unusual for it to be taken for a private member's bill, let alone such a bill sponsored by another party's MP.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen approached Ms Bradford to gain her approval for the extraordinary measure, before talking with United Future leader Peter Dunne and New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown.
Opinions within each of those parties is divided on the bill, and it seems likely neither will support urgency being taken.
Mr Dunne supports the bill, but United Future's other two MPs oppose it. Last night he said the party would oppose urgency being taken as the bill did not need to be debated hurriedly.
Mr Brown said New Zealand First's caucus would vote on the suggestion next week. He would not comment further, but with two MPs for the bill and five opposed, it seems doubtful that the urgency motion will gain New Zealand First support.
Those 10 votes, plus the 51 from MPs already opposed to the bill, should see the urgency motion defeated.
Yesterday Dr Cullen would not confirm if the Government was considering the move.
The Maori Party, whose support for the bill is vital for it eventually passing, confirmed it had also been approached by Dr Cullen. Its caucus will discuss the issue next week.
The bill has the numbers to become law, but its passage has been stymied by delaying tactics by opponents. Debate on the committee stages of the bill, which will effectively outlaw smacking, began on Wednesday last week. It proceeded at glacial pace, thanks to swathes of amendments and its opponents taking every opportunity to speak against it.
The bill is due to return for debate next Wednesday, but at its current rate of progress a final vote to make it into law may not happen until May.
National said the urgency motion showed Labour was desperate to rush the bill through.
"This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue," National leader John Key said.
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.
The bill as it stands allows parents to use reasonable force to protect their child or others from harm, or to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. However, it would not allow parents to use force for punishment.
Ms Bradford said: "Any sensible reading of the police guidelines on prosecution will show that police will exercise their discretion."
Smoke screen for an agenda
Craig Smith, Family Integrity, 23 March 07
I've listened to enough. People are way too polite in saying Green MP
Sue Bradford's motivations are pure and her heart is set on the
protection of defenceless children from violence and abuse.
This is simply not true: it is only the smoke screen for her sinister
agenda. It is obvious that this Bill does nothing to help abused
children or nail abusive parents, but it will make criminals of the best
parents in the country.
Physical violence and abuse toward children is not Bradford's or
Labour's concern: it is the God-ordained authority and influence that
parents have over their own children that Bradford is out to neutralise.
She hates the idea that parents can legally inculcate and enforce their
own traditional Christian family values into their children without
being forced to give her radical-feminist-Green values equal time. So
her Bill specifically targets "correction": parents are to be forbidden
to correct a child's bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress or
hygiene habits into good ones, regardless of how light or reasonable is
the force they use to make the correction.
If parents cannot correct their children, who then can? Government
agents getting their directions from the Top, where Sue Bradford intends
to dwell. Truancy officers, social workers and police all have legal
powers to use even unreasonable force to remove children from families
and to ensure attendance at state schooling and propaganda centres
(staffed by more Government agents known as school teachers), anger
management and drug dependency courses as well as living where they're
told, be it in foster families or a prison.
While a simple dictator would be happy controlling the military and the
economy and thickly lining his own pockets, Bradford's & Labour's
agenda, like the worst Reds of Mao's China and the USSR, is
totalitarianism: they know what's best for you and me and will control
us, our personal thought lives and our children. In this way they hope
to claim personal starring roles in Hegel's idea that "the State is god
walking on earth".
Like Sue and Helen's older sister Eve, they have a desire to be as god,
knowing and determining for themselves - and everyone else while they're
at it - what constitutes good and evil. Eve fell for it. Looks like
these two have fallen for it too. May God have mercy on us all.
I've listened to enough. People are way too polite in saying Green MP
Sue Bradford's motivations are pure and her heart is set on the
protection of defenceless children from violence and abuse.
This is simply not true: it is only the smoke screen for her sinister
agenda. It is obvious that this Bill does nothing to help abused
children or nail abusive parents, but it will make criminals of the best
parents in the country.
Physical violence and abuse toward children is not Bradford's or
Labour's concern: it is the God-ordained authority and influence that
parents have over their own children that Bradford is out to neutralise.
She hates the idea that parents can legally inculcate and enforce their
own traditional Christian family values into their children without
being forced to give her radical-feminist-Green values equal time. So
her Bill specifically targets "correction": parents are to be forbidden
to correct a child's bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress or
hygiene habits into good ones, regardless of how light or reasonable is
the force they use to make the correction.
If parents cannot correct their children, who then can? Government
agents getting their directions from the Top, where Sue Bradford intends
to dwell. Truancy officers, social workers and police all have legal
powers to use even unreasonable force to remove children from families
and to ensure attendance at state schooling and propaganda centres
(staffed by more Government agents known as school teachers), anger
management and drug dependency courses as well as living where they're
told, be it in foster families or a prison.
While a simple dictator would be happy controlling the military and the
economy and thickly lining his own pockets, Bradford's & Labour's
agenda, like the worst Reds of Mao's China and the USSR, is
totalitarianism: they know what's best for you and me and will control
us, our personal thought lives and our children. In this way they hope
to claim personal starring roles in Hegel's idea that "the State is god
walking on earth".
Like Sue and Helen's older sister Eve, they have a desire to be as god,
knowing and determining for themselves - and everyone else while they're
at it - what constitutes good and evil. Eve fell for it. Looks like
these two have fallen for it too. May God have mercy on us all.
Government panicking over smacking ban bill
The Government looks to be panicking over the damage being done to it by the smacking ban bill. Nothing else can explain the extraordinary, possibly unprecedented, plan to progress the bill through its remaining stages under urgency.
Urgency is almost always used only for Government bills, not private members bills and I doubt it has ever been used for a private members bill of an MP not in Government. I think this confirms it is now Helen Clark's bill, not Sue Bradford's.
As a sure sign this is political panic, not a legislative logjam, No Right Turn points out the already thin legislative agenda has become anorexic. Yes the Government has run out of bills, which makes any urgency a total abuse of the legislative process.
Luckily it looks like the numbers are not there for urgency as NZ First and United Future won't support it. But we should mourn the lack of integrity the Greens are displaying in that they were willing to support urgency. When Rod Donald was alive the Greens were renown for not supporting urgency motions, even on bills they supported, unless it was really necessary such as with tax legislation. Instead their reputation as a party of integrity now is reduced to Bradford saying "It would be great to finish it."
Bradford is also lying when she says that without urgency the debate could stretch on for months. As I have posted previously there are well known guidelines for how long each clause of a bill can be debated during committee stage. This is merely an attempt to ram it through, despite a majority of the public and of MPs being against it.
My message for opponents of the bill is that your campaign is obviously working, why else would the Government be panicking. The focus for the campaign needs to be on giving Labour MPs a conscience vote on the issue.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
National accuses Government of trying to railroad anti-smacking bill
from http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/tabid/188/articleID/23724/Default.aspx#top
Thu-22-Mar-2007 4:44pm
Thu-22-Mar-2007 4:44pm
National believes Labour is planning to railroad the so called
"anti-smacking bill" through Parliament by placing it under urgency.
The bill from Green MP Sue Bradford is in committee stage, following
long and drawn out debate last week that delayed a final vote until May.
In Parliament today, National's Gerry Brownlee called on the Government
to come clean about any short cuts it might try to take.
He also accused the Government of wanting to kill two birds with one
stone, by introducing other legislation at the same time.
Larry's latest CIR video on YouTube
256kbps Broadband...
Or view the video for Dial-up or 2mbps Broadband
Keep firing those emails away to our MPs my friends - every single email counts.
Or view the video for Dial-up or 2mbps Broadband
Keep firing those emails away to our MPs my friends - every single email counts.
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
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
www.politik.co.nz (Andy Moore, Christchurch, New Zealand)
Dear friends,
I am writing to let you know of the new website: www.politik.co.nz
which is currently soley devoted to the Section 59 debate currently taking place in New Zealand Aotearoa.
Sue Bradford, Greens MP is attempting to make the use of force in parental discipline of children illegal.
If Sue Bradford's bill is passed through Parliament, then many many good parents will be made criminals.
The Police force and CYFS will be entering homes and forcefully evicting children who they have heard have been smacked.
Bradford's poorly written bill will surely be more harmful to New Zealand's children than it will help them.
Whichever way you feel on this issue, I would encourage you to email your MPs. www.politik.co.nz will help you do this.
section59.blogspot.com is a blog where myself and two friends post our views, and other people's views, as well as news clips, related to the Section 59 debate.
www.politik.co.nz also has news of the peaceful protest marches to take place on Wednesday 28 March in Wellington and Christchurch. It has constantly updated news on the whole Section 59 debate.
Please check it out, and feel free to ask questions, or comment - or disagree!
Kind Regards,
Andy Moore
www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED
I am writing to let you know of the new website: www.politik.co.nz
which is currently soley devoted to the Section 59 debate currently taking place in New Zealand Aotearoa.
Sue Bradford, Greens MP is attempting to make the use of force in parental discipline of children illegal.
If Sue Bradford's bill is passed through Parliament, then many many good parents will be made criminals.
The Police force and CYFS will be entering homes and forcefully evicting children who they have heard have been smacked.
Bradford's poorly written bill will surely be more harmful to New Zealand's children than it will help them.
Whichever way you feel on this issue, I would encourage you to email your MPs. www.politik.co.nz will help you do this.
section59.blogspot.com is a blog where myself and two friends post our views, and other people's views, as well as news clips, related to the Section 59 debate.
www.politik.co.nz also has news of the peaceful protest marches to take place on Wednesday 28 March in Wellington and Christchurch. It has constantly updated news on the whole Section 59 debate.
Please check it out, and feel free to ask questions, or comment - or disagree!
Kind Regards,
Andy Moore
www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED
Letter to Peter Dunne
Dear Peter,
I am afraid to have to tell you that the good citizens of New Zealand have no choice but to now take to the streets to protest. The majority of the government having ignored their request: "let parents look after their own children", and attempting to impose it's communist ideals on the very people who they are supposed to represent.
Please Peter, for the love of the children, vote against Bradford's bill.
I used to respect you, as did many of my friends. Your attitude towards the 80% of New Zealanders who are opposed to this law change is nothing short of apalling. By voting for Bradford's bill, you are publically stating that the 120 MPs in parliament know better than the hundreds of thousands of "Mrs. Jones's" up and down our land, who from time to time take a child aside and smack him for breaking a rule or boundary set down by that family.
Please show New Zealand that you have a bit of backbone.
Yours, in anticipation,
Andy Moore.
I am afraid to have to tell you that the good citizens of New Zealand have no choice but to now take to the streets to protest. The majority of the government having ignored their request: "let parents look after their own children", and attempting to impose it's communist ideals on the very people who they are supposed to represent.
Please Peter, for the love of the children, vote against Bradford's bill.
I used to respect you, as did many of my friends. Your attitude towards the 80% of New Zealanders who are opposed to this law change is nothing short of apalling. By voting for Bradford's bill, you are publically stating that the 120 MPs in parliament know better than the hundreds of thousands of "Mrs. Jones's" up and down our land, who from time to time take a child aside and smack him for breaking a rule or boundary set down by that family.
Please show New Zealand that you have a bit of backbone.
Yours, in anticipation,
Andy Moore.
Wellington: March on Parliament - details
DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?
Then do something about it BEFORE it is too late! Sue Bradford's bill WILL be passed into law unless Helen Clark gets the message that the voters don't want it. As such, there will be a:
MARCH ON PARLIAMENT
Wednesday 28th March 2007, 12pm.
The march will start at Civic Square, and proceed to parliament, where we will give those politicians who think they can run our lives something to really think about.
This bill will do nothing to stop child abuse. Does anybody really think those people who beat children respect the law, or can even read this poster? Instead, Bradford's bill will turn good parents into criminals, and waste valuable police resources arresting and charging YOU, when they could be chasing the real child abusers and criminals. "It only takes a few determined people to make a difference."
Helen Clark was only smacked "once" as a child, and look how she turned out. I was smacked and I turned out fine.
*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.
SmackingBack Press Release
Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of members of parliament in a democracy: "government of the people, by the people, for the people." With polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders' in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, this is the strongest indication yet that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of democracy, ["Antiantismacking"/
"Too Many Groups Against Bradford & Clark to Count"/insert name here] will be staging a peaceful march on parliament in order to remind our politicians who they are elected to serve. If our message is not heeded, the continued employment of those MP's responsible will be reviewed at the next election.
Sue Bradford's bill, which proposes the removal of the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, strikes at the very foundations of the family structure and will turn loving parents into criminals. It will see do-gooder Kindergarten and Primary School teachers actively trying to break up families whose parents smack their children for their benefit later in life, as indicated by the words of one unnamed teacher: "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons".
This proposed law would compel the wasting of valuable and already stretched police time and resources getting involved in cases where they have no place, regardless of whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of parliamentarians when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need at any time, let alone in the current environment.
I like many other New Zealanders' was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me (or even threatened with it) is incomprehensible. They have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back.
www.smackingback.blogspot.com
"Too Many Groups Against Bradford & Clark to Count"/insert name here] will be staging a peaceful march on parliament in order to remind our politicians who they are elected to serve. If our message is not heeded, the continued employment of those MP's responsible will be reviewed at the next election.
Sue Bradford's bill, which proposes the removal of the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, strikes at the very foundations of the family structure and will turn loving parents into criminals. It will see do-gooder Kindergarten and Primary School teachers actively trying to break up families whose parents smack their children for their benefit later in life, as indicated by the words of one unnamed teacher: "People who smack their kids are ignorant morons".
This proposed law would compel the wasting of valuable and already stretched police time and resources getting involved in cases where they have no place, regardless of whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of parliamentarians when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need at any time, let alone in the current environment.
I like many other New Zealanders' was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me (or even threatened with it) is incomprehensible. They have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back.
www.smackingback.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
By What Standard?
Bradford's bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The only
reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being
polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely
detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.
This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children's
behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice.
Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.
Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.
To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and
undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly
ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck
any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they
want to develop.
Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is
allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to
specify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?
If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy
of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if
neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland
and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at
midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before
pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?
Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates
of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform
to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If
it is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,
dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub
to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have
a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no
longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford's Bill.
Craig Smith of Family Integrity
reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being
polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely
detached from reality. First, it demonises "correction" of children.
This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children's
behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice.
Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.
Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population.
To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and
undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly
ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck
any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they
want to develop.
Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. "Reasonable force" is
allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to
specify by what standard "offensive" and "disruptive" are to be judged?
If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy
of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if
neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland
and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at
midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before
pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?
Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates
of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform
to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If
it is Bradford's standards - which include approval of prostitution,
dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub
to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have
a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no
longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford's Bill.
Craig Smith of Family Integrity
Smacking Quotes
Sue Bradford ... was asked whether it would be possible to smack children after her bill becomes law - and she said no."
- Newtalk ZB, March 15, 2007
"This whole debate is about whether or not parents who smack should be prosecuted."
- Chester Burrows, March 13, 2007
- Chester Burrows, March 13, 2007
"It should not, one would have thought, have been beyond the ability of our Parliamentarians to come up with a law which says a slap on the hand or bum with the open hand is OK, and anything else is not. But it looks like they can't manage that."
- Transtasman, 15 March 2007
Bob McCroskie: "So you do not want to see smacking banned?"
Helen Clark: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature."
- Radio Rhema, 2005
Letter sent to some National MPs
Dear (National MP)
Please understand that repealling Section 59 will not result in lower child-abuse cases.
It will merely criminalise some good parents who continue to smack their children.
Labour has a big communist agenda, and I would plead with you to stand alongside your fellow National members, and vote against this extremely damaging bill.
Please show the 80%-90% of New Zealanders that you respect what they have to say on the matter.
Many, many voters are now moving to ACT, as it is percieved that National is re-aligning itself, closer to Labour. To help break this common public perception, please do the right thing and vote against Bradford's poorly written piece of legislation.
Thankyou for the job you do, representing us Kiwis,
Kindest Regards, Andy Moore
Please understand that repealling Section 59 will not result in lower child-abuse cases.
It will merely criminalise some good parents who continue to smack their children.
Labour has a big communist agenda, and I would plead with you to stand alongside your fellow National members, and vote against this extremely damaging bill.
Please show the 80%-90% of New Zealanders that you respect what they have to say on the matter.
Many, many voters are now moving to ACT, as it is percieved that National is re-aligning itself, closer to Labour. To help break this common public perception, please do the right thing and vote against Bradford's poorly written piece of legislation.
Thankyou for the job you do, representing us Kiwis,
Kindest Regards, Andy Moore
Muriel Newman is a lady I admire .
Muriel Newman wrote:
Thanks, Peter - I posted the response on the NZCPD Forum for others to see.
Best wishes,
Muriel
Dr Muriel Newman
NZ Centre for Political Debate
http://www.nzcpd.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.
Emma Holmes wrote:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.
A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.
I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.
I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.
My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.
You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.
Regards
John Key MP
-----------------------------------------
Chester Borrows - National Party MP - 20 February 2007
Section 59 amendments explained
“I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill,” says National MP Chester Borrows.
“The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.
“I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.
“Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes ‘reasonable force’.
“I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.
“But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.
“Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is. Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.
“Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret. So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.”
Thanks, Peter - I posted the response on the NZCPD Forum for others to see.
Best wishes,
Muriel
Dr Muriel Newman
NZ Centre for Political Debate
http://www.nzcpd.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.
Emma Holmes
Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.
A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.
I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.
I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.
My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.
You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.
Regards
John Key MP
Section 59 amendments explained
“I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill,” says National MP Chester Borrows.
“The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.
“I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.
“Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes ‘reasonable force’.
“I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.
“But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.
“Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is. Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.
“Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret. So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.”
John Key and Section 59 bill
email from John Key, Leader of National
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.
A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.
I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.
I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.
My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.
You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.
Yours sincerely
John Key
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the National Party
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.
A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.
I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.
I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.
My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.
You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.
Yours sincerely
John Key
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the National Party
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
National MP, Simon Power leads the way
Feilding Herald | Tuesday, 20 March 2007
Rangitikei MP Simon Power will vote against Sue Bradford's "no-
smacking" bill when it comes back for a third reading in Parliament in
May.
He says he has spent the past two or three months getting feedback from
the electorate, speaking to police, church ministers, social workers,
teachers, parents and retailers.
"This is an extremely difficult issue. I have been deeply concerned
about the way some of our children are treated.
"Equally, I went into politics to make the state's role smaller in
families, not larger."
Mr Power says that, in the eight years he has been in Parliament, this
is one of the hardest issues he has had to deal with.
"But in the end, I trust the families of Rangitikei, and not the state,
to raise our children."
Rangitikei MP Simon Power will vote against Sue Bradford's "no-
smacking" bill when it comes back for a third reading in Parliament in
May.
He says he has spent the past two or three months getting feedback from
the electorate, speaking to police, church ministers, social workers,
teachers, parents and retailers.
"This is an extremely difficult issue. I have been deeply concerned
about the way some of our children are treated.
"Equally, I went into politics to make the state's role smaller in
families, not larger."
Mr Power says that, in the eight years he has been in Parliament, this
is one of the hardest issues he has had to deal with.
"But in the end, I trust the families of Rangitikei, and not the state,
to raise our children."
Clark, Bradford wallowing chest-deep...
compiled from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00238.htm
Sue Bradford: "It's actually illegal now to smack your child".
She made this erroneous statement in an attempt to refute the claims
made by critics of her bill, that if it is enacted into law, it will
criminalise good parents who smack their kids using "reasonable force"
for the purpose of correction. Bradford is wrong. It is NOT illegal now
for a parent to smack their children if the action does not contravene
the clear guidelines and purpose ("correction") set out in s. 59 of the
Crimes Act (1961) for the use of "reasonable force" (in "domestic
discipline"). S. 59 provides a clear justification for the use of
"reasonable force", in the same way the other sections of the Act
provide justification for the use of "reasonable force" (e.g. in
self-defence s. 48 and s. 60 Force used by Ship Captains).
Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has also deliberately repeated Bradford＊s misrepresentation of the law. She has called the section59 defence, that is currently in place in our law, "ridiculous".
In setting out her support for Sue Bradford＊s bill that repeals s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961), prior to it going to the select committee, she told Paul Holmes on NewstalkZB on Monday June 13th 2005:
"On the other hand, to have an actual defence in the law [s. 59] where
someone can go and argue they used reasonable force, is also
ridiculous."
Most New Zealanders disagree with her. For over two years nation-wide
polls have consistently shown that about 80% of New Zealanders want the
defence for use of reasonable force contained in s. 59 retained and not
repealed, the defence that Clark describes as "ridiculous".
"She [Clark] stressed [to Holmes] that the Government would not
legislate to ban smacking, saying it would be a "very silly thing to
do".
In an interview with Bob McCroskie on Radio Rhema in 2005 Clark
expressed strong opposition to any ban on smacking:
Helen Clark: "...a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating, ah, but they
don't want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you
know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I
think there's a debate to go on..."
McCoskrie: "...right ... so, you don't want to see smacking banned..."
Clark: "Absolutely not! I think you're trying to defy human nature."
Clearly she has made a complete U-turn in recent days by using her party
whips (neither of whom have ever had children or even been married as
National MP Maurice Williamson highlighted in the House), to force all
Labour Party MPs to support Bradford＊s bill that Bradford herself has
conceded, bans smacking.
When accused by the National Party of doing a U-turn Clark denied it by
claiming that she has always opposed the banning of smacking and that
Bradford＊s bill has nothing to do with banning smacking, but only
removes the statutory defence against assault that applies to reasonable
force used in correction.
The New Zealand public will not be fooled by such deceit and dishonesty.
Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are hell-bent on stripping parents of the
only defence they have in law against a spurious charge of ＆assault＊
that may be brought against them for using "reasonable force" in
correction. They most definitely seek to ban smacking by legislative
means, despite their claims to the contrary, and refuse to concede that
lightly smacking a child for the purpose of correction will be banned if
Bradford＊s bill becomes law.
...Meanwhile deluded Ms Bradford is calling for millions of taxpayer
dollars to be spent explaining her bill to the public for the purpose of
proving, she hopes, that her bill does not ban smacking! She has already
wasted millions of taxpayers dollars promoting her "ridiculous" and
"silly" (words used by Clark to rubbish s. 59) bill that all sides of
the debate including Bradford herself, concede will make no impact
whatsoever in reducing child abuse figures in New Zealand.
Sue Bradford: "It's actually illegal now to smack your child".
She made this erroneous statement in an attempt to refute the claims
made by critics of her bill, that if it is enacted into law, it will
criminalise good parents who smack their kids using "reasonable force"
for the purpose of correction. Bradford is wrong. It is NOT illegal now
for a parent to smack their children if the action does not contravene
the clear guidelines and purpose ("correction") set out in s. 59 of the
Crimes Act (1961) for the use of "reasonable force" (in "domestic
discipline"). S. 59 provides a clear justification for the use of
"reasonable force", in the same way the other sections of the Act
provide justification for the use of "reasonable force" (e.g. in
self-defence s. 48 and s. 60 Force used by Ship Captains).
Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has also deliberately repeated Bradford＊s misrepresentation of the law. She has called the section59 defence, that is currently in place in our law, "ridiculous".
In setting out her support for Sue Bradford＊s bill that repeals s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961), prior to it going to the select committee, she told Paul Holmes on NewstalkZB on Monday June 13th 2005:
"On the other hand, to have an actual defence in the law [s. 59] where
someone can go and argue they used reasonable force, is also
ridiculous."
Most New Zealanders disagree with her. For over two years nation-wide
polls have consistently shown that about 80% of New Zealanders want the
defence for use of reasonable force contained in s. 59 retained and not
repealed, the defence that Clark describes as "ridiculous".
"She [Clark] stressed [to Holmes] that the Government would not
legislate to ban smacking, saying it would be a "very silly thing to
do".
In an interview with Bob McCroskie on Radio Rhema in 2005 Clark
expressed strong opposition to any ban on smacking:
Helen Clark: "...a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating, ah, but they
don't want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you
know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I
think there's a debate to go on..."
McCoskrie: "...right ... so, you don't want to see smacking banned..."
Clark: "Absolutely not! I think you're trying to defy human nature."
Clearly she has made a complete U-turn in recent days by using her party
whips (neither of whom have ever had children or even been married as
National MP Maurice Williamson highlighted in the House), to force all
Labour Party MPs to support Bradford＊s bill that Bradford herself has
conceded, bans smacking.
When accused by the National Party of doing a U-turn Clark denied it by
claiming that she has always opposed the banning of smacking and that
Bradford＊s bill has nothing to do with banning smacking, but only
removes the statutory defence against assault that applies to reasonable
force used in correction.
The New Zealand public will not be fooled by such deceit and dishonesty.
Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are hell-bent on stripping parents of the
only defence they have in law against a spurious charge of ＆assault＊
that may be brought against them for using "reasonable force" in
correction. They most definitely seek to ban smacking by legislative
means, despite their claims to the contrary, and refuse to concede that
lightly smacking a child for the purpose of correction will be banned if
Bradford＊s bill becomes law.
...Meanwhile deluded Ms Bradford is calling for millions of taxpayer
dollars to be spent explaining her bill to the public for the purpose of
proving, she hopes, that her bill does not ban smacking! She has already
wasted millions of taxpayers dollars promoting her "ridiculous" and
"silly" (words used by Clark to rubbish s. 59) bill that all sides of
the debate including Bradford herself, concede will make no impact
whatsoever in reducing child abuse figures in New Zealand.
Bradford's desperate hysteria
taken from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00381.htm
Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 11:53 am - Press Release: Green Party - 20 March 2007
Green Party MP Sue Bradford is concerned that some of those planning to
join next week's marches against her repeal of the S59 defence for
assaults on children, are not being told the full story by the
organizers.
"My Bill does not, and will not criminalise parents who lightly smack
their children. It removes a defence for what has always been a
technical assault."
Right, so "technically assulting" a child will not be criminalised?
" The press release for the march also raises fears about good parents
having their babies taken away under my Bill. Let me clear about this.
Unless parents were seriously abusing their children that bogey - the
Politically Correct are coming for your baby - will be no more likely if
my Bill is passed than it is now."
then why change the law?
"As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds for
discretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whether
the public interest would be served by a prosecution,"
It's either ok or it's not ok. The Police will follow what the law says.
"The press release announcing the march cites current polls showing 80
per cent opposition to my Bill.' In fact, the 80 percent figure seems
derived from a 2002 Justice Ministry report that found 80 percent of New
Zealanders felt smacking a child with an open hand is acceptable.
Huh, what about all those polls Bradford?
click here to view results of the many polls that have been conducted
Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 11:53 am - Press Release: Green Party - 20 March 2007
Green Party MP Sue Bradford is concerned that some of those planning to
join next week's marches against her repeal of the S59 defence for
assaults on children, are not being told the full story by the
organizers.
"My Bill does not, and will not criminalise parents who lightly smack
their children. It removes a defence for what has always been a
technical assault."
Right, so "technically assulting" a child will not be criminalised?
" The press release for the march also raises fears about good parents
having their babies taken away under my Bill. Let me clear about this.
Unless parents were seriously abusing their children that bogey - the
Politically Correct are coming for your baby - will be no more likely if
my Bill is passed than it is now."
then why change the law?
"As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds for
discretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whether
the public interest would be served by a prosecution,"
It's either ok or it's not ok. The Police will follow what the law says.
"The press release announcing the march cites current polls showing 80
per cent opposition to my Bill.' In fact, the 80 percent figure seems
derived from a 2002 Justice Ministry report that found 80 percent of New
Zealanders felt smacking a child with an open hand is acceptable.
Huh, what about all those polls Bradford?
click here to view results of the many polls that have been conducted
Mitch: update on the Wellington March
from www.smackingback.blogspot.com
In response to the dictatorship's intention to take away a parent's
right to smack their children, a march on Parliament is being organised
for March Wednesday 28th March. Reports from the media suggest that up
to 80% of people are opposed to Sue Bradford's bill, and in a somewhat
pleasing development, some MPs have finally started kicking up a fuss.
For more information, or to help with the organisation of this march,
please e-mail antiantismacking@gmail.com
<mailto:antiantismacking@gmail.com> .
If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us
that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking their
children for correctional purposes), you now need to apply for
permission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a
permit for any act likely to lead to children.
If you have children, intend to have children, or are just flat out
opposed to Nanny State, you MUST support this cause.
UPDATE: The March will start at 12pm at Wellington's Civic Square. NOTE:
Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early. Another
strong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an
Auckland March. More details as they come to hand...
In response to the dictatorship's intention to take away a parent's
right to smack their children, a march on Parliament is being organised
for March Wednesday 28th March. Reports from the media suggest that up
to 80% of people are opposed to Sue Bradford's bill, and in a somewhat
pleasing development, some MPs have finally started kicking up a fuss.
For more information, or to help with the organisation of this march,
please e-mail antiantismacking@gmail.com
<mailto:antiantismacking@gmail.com> .
If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us
that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking their
children for correctional purposes), you now need to apply for
permission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a
permit for any act likely to lead to children.
If you have children, intend to have children, or are just flat out
opposed to Nanny State, you MUST support this cause.
UPDATE: The March will start at 12pm at Wellington's Civic Square. NOTE:
Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early. Another
strong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an
Auckland March. More details as they come to hand...
NZ Herald jumps on Bradford's bandwagon
March 15, www.nzherald.co.nz
LIES IN THE HERALD
"A mother who became a focus for outlawing smacking when she "horse-whipped" her 12-year-old son says the new legislation will destroy families like her own."
LIES IN THE HERALD
"A mother who became a focus for outlawing smacking when she "horse-whipped" her 12-year-old son says the new legislation will destroy families like her own."
"I'm sorry, were you refering to this riding crop by any chance?"
Or, perhaps the term honesty is not to be found in your vocabulary?
Borrows Confident Of Smacking Support
From TV One's Agenda program - Monday, 19 March 2007, 8:38 am
National MP Chester Borrows says he is confident his amendment to Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill will gain the support of Parliament.
Speaking on TVOne's Agenda programme, Mr Borrows was confident his amendment bill would pass.
When asked if he thought he had the support to get his bill through the House, Mr Borrows replied;
"Yeah I think we can, it depends on what support we get and who's prepared to stand up and be counted."
He suggested Prime Minister Helen Clark should act on her 2005 election comments and vote for the bill.
"If the PM really wants to achieve what she said in 2005 she'll be voting for my amendment, and not Sue's [Bradford] bill."
National MP Chester Borrows says he is confident his amendment to Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill will gain the support of Parliament.
Speaking on TVOne's Agenda programme, Mr Borrows was confident his amendment bill would pass.
When asked if he thought he had the support to get his bill through the House, Mr Borrows replied;
"Yeah I think we can, it depends on what support we get and who's prepared to stand up and be counted."
He suggested Prime Minister Helen Clark should act on her 2005 election comments and vote for the bill.
"If the PM really wants to achieve what she said in 2005 she'll be voting for my amendment, and not Sue's [Bradford] bill."
Monday, March 19, 2007
Wellington peaceful protest march details
MARCH ON PARLIAMENT
Against Anti Smacking Bill
DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?
Then do something about it BEFORE it's too late!
Join us in a PEACEFUL protest
Wednesday 28th March 2007
Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then
advancing to Parliament
*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.
For more information, see
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mailantiantismacking@gmail.com
Mitch Lees
Representative
Phone: 027 243 1676
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Nat MP changes sides on the s59 debate
"I have decided to vote against the third reading...
...I voted for it at the second reading. I was keen to see the issue discussed further and for the House to vote on the Borrows amendment. I worry deeply about vulnerable children but in the end I trust the families of my electorate of Rangitikei to raise our children not the state. As a lawyer I am also gravely concerned about the certainty of application of this proposed change."
Simon.
Simon Power, National MP for Rangitikei - voted for the full repeal of Section 59 in the first and second readings, but has now stated that he will be voting against it on it's third reading.
...I voted for it at the second reading. I was keen to see the issue discussed further and for the House to vote on the Borrows amendment. I worry deeply about vulnerable children but in the end I trust the families of my electorate of Rangitikei to raise our children not the state. As a lawyer I am also gravely concerned about the certainty of application of this proposed change."
Simon.
Simon Power, National MP for Rangitikei - voted for the full repeal of Section 59 in the first and second readings, but has now stated that he will be voting against it on it's third reading.
| Rangitikei |
Plunket's mistake
Plunket: "It is about children. It is about keeping babies and children safe,
making the changes and setting the supports in legislation to help the
nation do the right thing by them - to give them the best we have."
Um, isn't this the organisation that promotes "mother's choice"? Isn't this the corporation that supports government funding of 18,000 infant-murders per year in this country of ours? Surely they are mistaken? They can't possibly be against abuse towards babies, and yet and the same time, be pro abuse towards babies, can they?
Helen Clark seems to think that they can.
making the changes and setting the supports in legislation to help the
nation do the right thing by them - to give them the best we have."
Um, isn't this the organisation that promotes "mother's choice"? Isn't this the corporation that supports government funding of 18,000 infant-murders per year in this country of ours? Surely they are mistaken? They can't possibly be against abuse towards babies, and yet and the same time, be pro abuse towards babies, can they?
Helen Clark seems to think that they can.
"Smacking will be banned, but that doesn't mean you can't do it..."
The following is complied by one of Larry Baldock's team from all the quotes of Helen Clark.
I agree with the Prime Minister that all the confusion is coming from the Media ….
Helen Clark says she wants to send this very clear message to the Parents of New Zealand:
It is OK to smack your kids… it is a natural thing to do, but from now on it is against the law. We don't mind if you do smack, but it is illegal and you may be arrested. Smacking will be BANNED, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. We will NOT tolerate any type of force… including smacking, but of course parents will be able to smack their kids.
It is ridiculous to say people might be arrested, because we are only after people who assault their kids. Smacking is assaulting your kids and we do not want it as part of the culture of this country. Of course CYFS and the Police will investigate any complaint of smacking, and parents will be arrested, but I repeat parents will NOT be arrested for smacking their children.
That is the very clear message we want to send to the parents of New Zealand , and we are relying on the common sense of the Police to interpret that when they investigate parents who smack their kids.Saturday, March 17, 2007
Sue Bradford's confession
Sue Bradford: "I'm not naive about the police or the courts. I've been, um through both on many occasions. And I've been charged with assult, and know what that's about"
From the debate of Section 59 with Craig Smith, Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford.
See this video on YouTube to hear Sue saying this.
From the debate of Section 59 with Craig Smith, Peter Dunne and Sue Bradford.
See this video on YouTube to hear Sue saying this.
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Petition: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Sign that petition!
Click here for a copy of the petition that you can download and print out. Please gather some signatures for this petition from your friends, workmates, neighbors, etcetera. Even if you just download the sheet, fill in your own name, and one or two friends/ family members (voting age, over 18), and send it in, that would be fantastic.
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.
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.
The Infamous Labour Press Release
by Labour MP Russell Fairbrother
"...It has always been a crime to smack a child, any child. It's the crime of assault. For over 110 years, smacking a child could make a parent liable to a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years, and sometimes more.
For more than a century, sending a child to its bedroom is the crime of Kidnapping. It makes the parent liable to a prison term of 14 years; as does the mere act of holding the child against its wishes to do such necessary tasks as dressing. Most in Parliament want to change this.
That parents are never charged is because many criminal offences are committed daily by both law abiding and not so law abiding people. Generally, the police only investigate when they receive a complaint and complaints arise when something seems to offend someone else's sense of appropriate community behaviour.
Having received a complaint, the police then decide whether they should allocate valuable resources to an investigation. This involves an initial assessment as to whether the complaint involves behaviour seriously breaching community standards.
Once investigated, the Police decide whether the circumstances are such that the matter should go before a Court. If the police conclude the behaviour is serious enough to warrant a prosecution, they bring the matter to the Court.
If it gets to Court, Judge or a Jury then decide whether the evidence offered by the police is sufficient to warrant a conviction being entered.
The proposals to change the law have no impact on the above stages. The proposed changes do not "criminalise" parents who smack, because smacking a child has always been the crime of assault.
It is only when a Court decides the evidence offered by the police is sufficient to warrant a conviction being entered does the Court consider the defence made available by s59 of the Crimes Act. If it feels s59 may apply then, despite the smacking allegation being sufficiently serious to get past all the earlier hurdles, the Court must find the person charged Not Guilty.
Section 59 goes back beyond the 1890s. The proposals to change s59 bring it up to date. These proposals allow force - "smacking" - if it is to stop harm to the child or another, stop the child doing something criminal, stop offensive or disruptive behaviour, or the need to smack is part of the normal daily tasks of good parenting.
No decent parent or normal Kiwi, can object to that. No one will be criminalized by the changes to s59. These changes reinforce the good parenting of 99% of Kiwi households..."
A quick response to this press release. How the heck can Fairbrother say "No one will be criminalised by the changes to s59?" For starters, he spells criminalised with a "z", which is wrong, but the biggest issue is that he does not know that no one will be criminalised. Rather, on the contrary, if section 59 is repealed, many many parents will be disciplining their children on the wrong side of the law. And plenty of good parents will be criminalised.
Stammering out his point of view, Fairbrother says that all smacking is assult, and is already illegal. Firstly, this means that my parents are criminals. Secondy, if it is assult, why bother repealing Section 59 ?
The whole thing is just beyond me. This is surely the definition of idiocy.
Andy.Thursday, March 15, 2007
This is an Email i recieved today from a friend...
Listening to Leighton Smith this morning, a national mp was on talking about section 59. He pointed out that Labour MPs are being 'whipped' to vote for the repeal. This means they can be expelled from the party if they do not vote with the party. However not all Labour MPs agree with this repeal. Indeed some are actually really against it.
The following MP's he identified as being anti the repeal. I believe we should write to these men and support and encourage them to have courage and vote with their conscience. Please share this information with anyone you think who would be keen to write to these men.
Damian O'Connor
doconnor@ministers.govt.nz and robin.hyams@parliament.govt.nz
Dover Samuels
dsamuels@ministers.govt.nz and lisa.ngaia@parliament.govt.nz
George Hawkins
ghawkins@ministers.govt.nz and g.hawk@xtra.co.nz
Harry Duynhoven
hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz
Mahara Okeroa
mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt.nz
Listening to Leighton Smith this morning, a national mp was on talking about section 59. He pointed out that Labour MPs are being 'whipped' to vote for the repeal. This means they can be expelled from the party if they do not vote with the party. However not all Labour MPs agree with this repeal. Indeed some are actually really against it.
The following MP's he identified as being anti the repeal. I believe we should write to these men and support and encourage them to have courage and vote with their conscience. Please share this information with anyone you think who would be keen to write to these men.
Damian O'Connor
doconnor@ministers.govt.nz and robin.hyams@parliament.govt.nz
Dover Samuels
dsamuels@ministers.govt.nz and lisa.ngaia@parliament.govt.nz
George Hawkins
ghawkins@ministers.govt.nz and g.hawk@xtra.co.nz
Harry Duynhoven
hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz
Mahara Okeroa
mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Pita Sharples - "It's what we want, not what New Zealand wants"
This from the Dominon post, Wednesday 14 March
...Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples acknowledged yesterday the decision of his MPs would not be popular with many people. "But we're asking New Zealand to be brave - to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children and that we can actually find an alternative way of bringing up our children."...
It's as clear as daylight what Pita is saying. Summing up, he's saying: "yes, we realise that the majority of New Zealanders, primarily caring parents, - do not agree with the decision to repeal Section 59. However, we 70odd MPs in Parliament know better than these parents, and therefore plan to vote against their will, even though, we acknowledge, we have been set in place to represent their will."
What a sickeningly weak-kneed response. Good old Chester Borrows trys to wack some sense into the Maori MPs yesterday (13March), and they turn round and issue this non-sensical statement? Don't even get me started on Labour! Bunch of no-hopers all voting for what Helen Clark wants, - and of course Clark wants it because then the Greens will ally with her at the next election.
New Zealanders, is this democracy? No, this is one of the first steps on the way to New Zealand becoming a third-world, communist country with an untouchable dictator and their bunch of henchmen (MPs) making all the legislation they want to become law.
"Its the most anti democratic thing that I have seen in NZ politics" - quote.
...Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples acknowledged yesterday the decision of his MPs would not be popular with many people. "But we're asking New Zealand to be brave - to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children and that we can actually find an alternative way of bringing up our children."...
It's as clear as daylight what Pita is saying. Summing up, he's saying: "yes, we realise that the majority of New Zealanders, primarily caring parents, - do not agree with the decision to repeal Section 59. However, we 70odd MPs in Parliament know better than these parents, and therefore plan to vote against their will, even though, we acknowledge, we have been set in place to represent their will."
What a sickeningly weak-kneed response. Good old Chester Borrows trys to wack some sense into the Maori MPs yesterday (13March), and they turn round and issue this non-sensical statement? Don't even get me started on Labour! Bunch of no-hopers all voting for what Helen Clark wants, - and of course Clark wants it because then the Greens will ally with her at the next election.
New Zealanders, is this democracy? No, this is one of the first steps on the way to New Zealand becoming a third-world, communist country with an untouchable dictator and their bunch of henchmen (MPs) making all the legislation they want to become law.
"Its the most anti democratic thing that I have seen in NZ politics" - quote.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Email sent to these MPs at 6:35pm, 13 March 07, the night before the vote on the Repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act
Dear MP,
Please do not fool around with the thousands of functional family homes in New Zealand.
A decision, the vote that you will be making tomorrow is more serious than perhaps you imagine.
As members of my Government, it is your duty to voice and act on the concerns and opinion of myself and my countrymen.
Please consider carefully tonight, tomorrow morning, and as you vote.
Are you on Sue Bradford's side? Are you happy to bull-doze over the vast quantities of public opinion on the subject?
Please vote against the repeal of Section 59!
I have found that ACT is the best party now, and I will be joining Young Act at University - and I will almost certainly be voting for ACT, because they show a bit of common-sense!
Thanks for your time,
and may God Bless you in your important job,
--
Andy Moore
http://www.starstuddedsuperstep.com
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://www.starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59
Dear MP,
Please do not fool around with the thousands of functional family homes in New Zealand.
A decision, the vote that you will be making tomorrow is more serious than perhaps you imagine.
As members of my Government, it is your duty to voice and act on the concerns and opinion of myself and my countrymen.
Please consider carefully tonight, tomorrow morning, and as you vote.
Are you on Sue Bradford's side? Are you happy to bull-doze over the vast quantities of public opinion on the subject?
Please vote against the repeal of Section 59!
I have found that ACT is the best party now, and I will be joining Young Act at University - and I will almost certainly be voting for ACT, because they show a bit of common-sense!
Thanks for your time,
and may God Bless you in your important job,
--
Andy Moore
http://www.starstuddedsuperstep
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.familyintegrity.org
http://www.starstuddedsuperstep
Summary of Polls over last 2 years
percentage opposed to: Repeal of S59
Bradford's bill
2007 Banning reasonable smacking
March
TV3 News Poll 83%
February
NZ Herald 90% (3874 votes)
TVNZ website 87%
2006
July
STUFF website 82% (6700 votes!)
TVNZ website 88%
May
Bay of Plenty Times 83%
February
Child Abuse Conference! 82%
STUFF website 84%
Dominion Post 82%
2005
March
STUFF website 86%
July
NZ Herald 71%
June
STUFF website 82%
What do you say to this Sue?
percentage opposed to: Repeal of S59
Bradford's bill
2007 Banning reasonable smacking
March
TV3 News Poll 83%
February
NZ Herald 90% (3874 votes)
TVNZ website 87%
2006
July
STUFF website 82% (6700 votes!)
TVNZ website 88%
May
Bay of Plenty Times 83%
February
Child Abuse Conference! 82%
STUFF website 84%
Dominion Post 82%
2005
March
STUFF website 86%
July
NZ Herald 71%
June
STUFF website 82%
What do you say to this Sue?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Plunket and Section 59
information from www.plunket.org.nz
If Section 59 is repealled, will I become a criminal if I smack my child?
Plunket: "...The police will only take action when it goes too far."
Answer the question Plunket. Will you be a criminal or not? Police prosection has got nothing to do with it. There are plenty of criminals out there (house-hold robbery for instance), who have not been caught, but are nonetheless criminals.
Plunket: "...Section 59's repeal is not about criminalising ordinary parents. It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assult their children..."
Could you remind us again exactly how many times it's been used Plunket? Maybe seven times - in the history of Section 59.
Plunket: "Children are number one - that's the only statistic worth recording"
Really? Why is that? If the child is number one, then are the parents number two and three? No, the child is part of the family. No rank needs to be assigned, thankyou. Good parents are those who care enough to, at times, smack their children to reinforce the serious nature of the rule that has been broken.
Among the list of "things that children respond really well to", as incentives or reasons for doing what they are told, are the following:
- having a good example set for them
- communication about what is right and wrong
- consistent, authoritative discipline
- routine
- clear boundaries and expectations
- time out
- removal of privileges
How are things such as removal of privileges, routine and time-out to be enforced? What if your child doesn't want his privileges removed?
What then?
If Section 59 is repealled, will I become a criminal if I smack my child?
Plunket: "...The police will only take action when it goes too far."
Answer the question Plunket. Will you be a criminal or not? Police prosection has got nothing to do with it. There are plenty of criminals out there (house-hold robbery for instance), who have not been caught, but are nonetheless criminals.
Plunket: "...Section 59's repeal is not about criminalising ordinary parents. It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assult their children..."
Could you remind us again exactly how many times it's been used Plunket? Maybe seven times - in the history of Section 59.
Plunket: "Children are number one - that's the only statistic worth recording"
Really? Why is that? If the child is number one, then are the parents number two and three? No, the child is part of the family. No rank needs to be assigned, thankyou. Good parents are those who care enough to, at times, smack their children to reinforce the serious nature of the rule that has been broken.
Among the list of "things that children respond really well to", as incentives or reasons for doing what they are told, are the following:
- having a good example set for them
- communication about what is right and wrong
- consistent, authoritative discipline
- routine
- clear boundaries and expectations
- time out
- removal of privileges
How are things such as removal of privileges, routine and time-out to be enforced? What if your child doesn't want his privileges removed?
What then?
If smacking is assult, then so is innoculation
Several times throughout the early years of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before a nurse, and have a sharp thing stabbed in his arm. It hurts like anything, and the child cries. The child's mother stands by, watching, and then comforts the child once the process is completed.
This is called innoculation. The child will be unhappy about this. The reason it is done, is because it will help the child in the long-run, making his immune system much stronger, and able to resist dangerous diseases that would otherwise kill him.
Several times (admittedly, a few more) throughout the early year's of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before his father or mother, and experience the sting of a smack on his hand or his bottom. It hurts, probably not quite as badly as the innoculation, and the child cries. The child's parents comfort the child, and the ordeal is over.
This is called smacking. The child will be unhappy about this. However, the reason that it is done is that it will help the child in the long run. It will part of the parenting process that will help to make his heart much stronger, able to resist dangerous situations that could otherwise kill him.
What is the difference? Both processes involve pain on the child's heart, and empathy on the part of the parent. One process is for the betterment of health, the other is for the discipline of the child. If smacking is assult and violence, then so is innoculation. And we can say that this is Government sanctioned abuse of children by way of violent assult. This is the language that the repealists are using.
This is called innoculation. The child will be unhappy about this. The reason it is done, is because it will help the child in the long-run, making his immune system much stronger, and able to resist dangerous diseases that would otherwise kill him.
Several times (admittedly, a few more) throughout the early year's of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before his father or mother, and experience the sting of a smack on his hand or his bottom. It hurts, probably not quite as badly as the innoculation, and the child cries. The child's parents comfort the child, and the ordeal is over.
This is called smacking. The child will be unhappy about this. However, the reason that it is done is that it will help the child in the long run. It will part of the parenting process that will help to make his heart much stronger, able to resist dangerous situations that could otherwise kill him.
What is the difference? Both processes involve pain on the child's heart, and empathy on the part of the parent. One process is for the betterment of health, the other is for the discipline of the child. If smacking is assult and violence, then so is innoculation. And we can say that this is Government sanctioned abuse of children by way of violent assult. This is the language that the repealists are using.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Bradford's low standards
from www.tv3.co.nz
“Green MP Sue Bradford says it is disappointing two Christian schools still refuse to clarify whether their staff use corporal punishment on children.
Wainuiomata Christian College and Auckland's Taradale Park Christian School have been warned to disclose their policy on physical punishment - or face closure.
Sue Bradford says it is time some Christian schools caught up with modern education.”
Someone should break the news to Bradford that throughout history, it has been the the secular scientific world catching up with Science according to the Bible . I think the whole thing is that Christian schools do not want to “catch up” with modern education.
It is likely that two Christian schools are going to be forced to close their doors, leaving many of the children to the mercy of the State machine. That modern marvel of social engineering. If the parents are happy with senior staff members of the school handing out the odd wallop every now and then, then what is the problem?
This recent turn of events has surely got to get your hackles up. If this is what they are doing before total repeal of Section 59, have a little think about what will be next on the agenda. It could be criminilisation of passing on to your child your own values, whether they be religious, or just core values to live by. It could well be what you may or may not feed your child for breakfast.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill - First Reading
Presented to Parliament by Sue Bradford, MP on 27th July 2005
Click here to view the whole speech
Here is a short excerpt that I found interesting:
"...The aim of this repeal is not to subject parents to prosecution for trivial assault [ie. light smacking]. In other countries where laws like this have been changed, there has not been a marked increase in such arrests and I certainly would not expect it to happen here, where the climate of public opinion is so manifestly not ready for a ban on smacking..."
Now let's have a look at Sue Bradford's bill that she wants to replace Section 59
Part two reads:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force [ie. light smacking] for the purpose of correction.
So does this piece of legislation here, - and Sue Bradford's initial speech before Parliament add up? No, they are contradictory
DID YOU KNOW?
When Jim Anderton proposed to Parliament that P be classified a Class A hard drug, the Greens were the only party to vote against it. Click here to view the full story
NB: I inserted the [ie. light smacking] into the two articles - they were not in the original articles.
Presented to Parliament by Sue Bradford, MP on 27th July 2005
Click here to view the whole speech
Here is a short excerpt that I found interesting:
"...The aim of this repeal is not to subject parents to prosecution for trivial assault [ie. light smacking]. In other countries where laws like this have been changed, there has not been a marked increase in such arrests and I certainly would not expect it to happen here, where the climate of public opinion is so manifestly not ready for a ban on smacking..."
Now let's have a look at Sue Bradford's bill that she wants to replace Section 59
Part two reads:
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force [ie. light smacking] for the purpose of correction.
So does this piece of legislation here, - and Sue Bradford's initial speech before Parliament add up? No, they are contradictory
DID YOU KNOW?
When Jim Anderton proposed to Parliament that P be classified a Class A hard drug, the Greens were the only party to vote against it. Click here to view the full story
NB: I inserted the [ie. light smacking] into the two articles - they were not in the original articles.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Incoherency, Oxymorons and sheer Madness
"smacking is bad, abortion is good."
Sue Bradford:
"smacking is bad, abortion is good."- if we stop parents from being allowed to smack their children when they are naughty, then the level of violence against children will drop.
Hmmm, I thought violence against children was already illegal wasn't it?
- smacking is violence
Really? Although the act of smacking/spanking itself is according to the dictionary, a violent act, it is misleading to say that smacking is violence.
- my bill would not outlaw smacking - it would simply remove the defence of reasonable
force.
Right, so smacking is fine... But reasonable force is not fine Sue? Why pass a bill that you say will not be enforced? Get a life.
- "Parents fear that they are going to be arrested, that someone will dob them in for
smacking their child. I can understand that fear and that is not my intention."
Then what is your intention, Sue?
I cannot understand what National, NZ First and United Future MPs are doing, supporting Bradford's bill. The Bill doesn't make sense. She doesn't talk sense. It just doesn't make sense.
The only way this proposed bill of hers is going to become law, is if the government ignores the people of New Zealand, which it really should not do.
The only way this proposed bill of hers is going to become law, is if the government ignores the people of New Zealand, which it really should not do.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Anti-Spanking Bill Won't Pass, Lawmaker Says
San Francisco Bay-area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber has abandoned her campaign to make spanking a crime.
Check out the full story on the NBC news website here, where you can also vote in the poll.
San Francisco Bay-area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber has abandoned her campaign to make spanking a crime.
Check out the full story on the NBC news website here, where you can also vote in the poll.
screenshot (12:16pm 27Feb07)Funny, isn't it, how New Zealand's entire Labour party, and members of other parties, including National just seem blind to the facts. I've never seen a poll yet where "smacking isn't ok" comes out on top.
Wake up Parliament!
Here are a few good letters/excerpts to the editor of The Press from Tuesday 22 February.
"As a loving father of four children, I was disgusted to read your editorial on Saturday, which implies that The Press fully supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill. Bradford and company, and now the media are misleading people. The media are portraying this bill as an anti-smacking bill. It's actually an anti-discipline bill that will prevent decent, law-abiding parents from using any reasonable force to correct their children..." EUAN GUTTERIDGE
"Green MP Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill is a slap in the face for freedom of choice for ordinary New Zealanders. How dare she play God and try to interfere with family life at such a fundamental level? She is a disgrace to Parliament, her country and herself..." DAVID MURDOCH
"With a little common sense and proper definition of the type of forbidden punishments - whips, rods, planks, iron, electric cords, spades, beating with furniture and throwing children against walls - all this outcry would have been avoided. People who do not believe in smacking obviously have not had a child that no amount of reasoning will influence, whereas a good, hard smack, and I emphasise hard, will bring it to it's senses..." K. M. HENDERSON
In response to this letter, I would say that the definition: "reasonable force in the circumstances" is sufficient. Beating up your kids is obviously not OK.
"Dope more smack less seems to be the message of Sue Bradford and the Greens. I can't work out why criminalising dope smokers is wrong, but criminalising good parents is right." ALAN AITKEN
And another letter, related to the debate:
"One of my employees, Steve Maharey, the Minister of Education, is keen to spend my money without any real plan or direction. He plans to spend $4.5 million to deal with disruptive students considered critical cases. The only way these classroom thugs can be disciplined is the old-fashion cane. I, and thousands of others were taught manners and respect with the cane. I am sure there are thousands of Kiwis who, like me, would willingly donate canes to schools, thus saving $4.5m and reducing the crime rate." NOEL GILLESPIE
"As a loving father of four children, I was disgusted to read your editorial on Saturday, which implies that The Press fully supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill. Bradford and company, and now the media are misleading people. The media are portraying this bill as an anti-smacking bill. It's actually an anti-discipline bill that will prevent decent, law-abiding parents from using any reasonable force to correct their children..." EUAN GUTTERIDGE
"Green MP Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill is a slap in the face for freedom of choice for ordinary New Zealanders. How dare she play God and try to interfere with family life at such a fundamental level? She is a disgrace to Parliament, her country and herself..." DAVID MURDOCH
"With a little common sense and proper definition of the type of forbidden punishments - whips, rods, planks, iron, electric cords, spades, beating with furniture and throwing children against walls - all this outcry would have been avoided. People who do not believe in smacking obviously have not had a child that no amount of reasoning will influence, whereas a good, hard smack, and I emphasise hard, will bring it to it's senses..." K. M. HENDERSON
In response to this letter, I would say that the definition: "reasonable force in the circumstances" is sufficient. Beating up your kids is obviously not OK.
"Dope more smack less seems to be the message of Sue Bradford and the Greens. I can't work out why criminalising dope smokers is wrong, but criminalising good parents is right." ALAN AITKEN
And another letter, related to the debate:
"One of my employees, Steve Maharey, the Minister of Education, is keen to spend my money without any real plan or direction. He plans to spend $4.5 million to deal with disruptive students considered critical cases. The only way these classroom thugs can be disciplined is the old-fashion cane. I, and thousands of others were taught manners and respect with the cane. I am sure there are thousands of Kiwis who, like me, would willingly donate canes to schools, thus saving $4.5m and reducing the crime rate." NOEL GILLESPIE
Here's a pathetic piece of propaganda I found in The Press the other day... Click on it to see the full size image of the article...
The article states: "we canvas the views of some people involved in the debate", but then they somehow forgot any views from people such as Craig Smith or Bob McCroskie... Funny that.
The article states: "we canvas the views of some people involved in the debate", but then they somehow forgot any views from people such as Craig Smith or Bob McCroskie... Funny that.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Yesterday I emailed all the mps in Parliament, asking them to vote against the repealling of Section59. I have recieved about 30 - 40 responses as yet, many of these being "out of office auto replies". I have recieved nothing substantial from any "pro" mps, but I have had good responses from at least three "against" mps.
Here are the replies/stances taken by several MPs I emailed, regarding Section59:
Gordon Copeland - United Future list MP
Judy Turner- United Future deputy leader
Chester Borrows- National mp
Here are the replies/stances taken by several MPs I emailed, regarding Section59:
Gordon Copeland - United Future list MP
Judy Turner- United Future deputy leader
Chester Borrows- National mp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)