from The Daily Post - www.dailypost.co.nz
22.06.2007 - By KRISTIN MACFARLANE
SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8. Most of the time they're good kids. But sometimes if they're naughty, she'll give them a light smack. Ms Scott says that doesn't make her a bad mother. However, she's worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny. Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill - the anti-smacking bill - comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.
Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought. In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said. "You can't say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn't work," she said. "If it's controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you're trying to teach a child something. "It's all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight." Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.
It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said. Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.
"Guaranteed, it will happen."
John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed. "There's always been the potential for false complaints," Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child. "It's certainly a step in the right direction," he said. He didn't think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble. "The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense," he said.
------------------------------------------------
A quick comment from the editor of the Section 59 blog...
"I feel sorry for all these police officers. Earlier in the year, they were expressing apprehension over the new bill, however now they are all parroting the politicians. I reckon if they stand up and say "this new piece of law is going to result in good parents being prosecuted, and children being taken out of good homes", they would lose their job. The ammendment has not really changed anything at all, and Joe Bloggs police officer down at your local police station knows this. He's just scared to say so."
Friday, June 22, 2007
"Pain an absolutely essential learning tool for children"
An anonymous commenter found this fantastic article on a blog in the United Kingdom.
Question: There is a 13-month old child trying to pull the network cable out of my laptop as I write this. Should I hit him? How hard?
Answer No 1: A light two-finger tap on the baby's hand together with sternly saying, "No" has a small chance of getting the message across to a 1 year old, though it is probable that the baby's brain is not yet ready to make the connection,
Answer No 2: The baby's brain most certainly is ready to make such a connection (the stern NO would probably do on it's own) - the trouble is that in most cases the parent won't be able to provide the necessary consistency.
Pain is an absolutely essential learning tool for children *including* babies. When a baby get his first teeth he will bite his tongue, it will hurt, he'll do it again, it will hurt again, and he'll quickly associate the two and learn not to bite his tongue. The same applies throughout early childhood - we evolved to feel pain for a reason - and young children *cannot* be taught not to damage their bodies in other ways. If anyone is stupid enough to think they can - try googling for the "Congenital Insensitivity to Pain" and read the stories of children with this disease. Or watch "A Life Without Pain". Most have their teeth pulled to stop then chewing their tongue to bits. Most end up in wheelchairs by the time they are teenagers, if they are lucky.
I'm sure if parents of these children had a button they could press to cause their child pain every time they bit their tongue, or ran into a tree, they'd do it, and probably be accused of violence by the loony anti-smacking brigade.
The causing of the child pain isn't the problem with smacking, since as per above it's an essential learning tool. The problems with smacking are consistency and association. In order to work, the child must be associate the pain with the "bad action", and the punishment must be consistent (it must happen every time the "bad action" occurs). This is very hard to achieve - but exactly the same problem applies to *any* system of punishment or reward.
Question: There is a 13-month old child trying to pull the network cable out of my laptop as I write this. Should I hit him? How hard?
Answer No 1: A light two-finger tap on the baby's hand together with sternly saying, "No" has a small chance of getting the message across to a 1 year old, though it is probable that the baby's brain is not yet ready to make the connection,
Answer No 2: The baby's brain most certainly is ready to make such a connection (the stern NO would probably do on it's own) - the trouble is that in most cases the parent won't be able to provide the necessary consistency.
Pain is an absolutely essential learning tool for children *including* babies. When a baby get his first teeth he will bite his tongue, it will hurt, he'll do it again, it will hurt again, and he'll quickly associate the two and learn not to bite his tongue. The same applies throughout early childhood - we evolved to feel pain for a reason - and young children *cannot* be taught not to damage their bodies in other ways. If anyone is stupid enough to think they can - try googling for the "Congenital Insensitivity to Pain" and read the stories of children with this disease. Or watch "A Life Without Pain". Most have their teeth pulled to stop then chewing their tongue to bits. Most end up in wheelchairs by the time they are teenagers, if they are lucky.
I'm sure if parents of these children had a button they could press to cause their child pain every time they bit their tongue, or ran into a tree, they'd do it, and probably be accused of violence by the loony anti-smacking brigade.
The causing of the child pain isn't the problem with smacking, since as per above it's an essential learning tool. The problems with smacking are consistency and association. In order to work, the child must be associate the pain with the "bad action", and the punishment must be consistent (it must happen every time the "bad action" occurs). This is very hard to achieve - but exactly the same problem applies to *any* system of punishment or reward.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Kiwi's perspective on the debate
taken from www.nzherald.co.nz 21 June 07
Selected opinions from readers asked the question:
"What do you think of the new police smacking guidelines?"
Kiri's, Daniel Ionita's and Victim of Abuse's comments are exceptional
Selected opinions from readers asked the question:
"What do you think of the new police smacking guidelines?"
Kiri's, Daniel Ionita's and Victim of Abuse's comments are exceptional
Baggy (Northland): We will now see, how far Sue Bradford's law will go. If I smack my great grandchildren in public for a trivial thing, I would like the police to arrest me and then they can baby sit them (all paid by our tax) and then they can find someone to look after them. (all paid by our tax) Maybe we can send them to Sue's home, Helen Clark's or to Cullens.
Kiri: If we can only use a smack if a child is about to do something - will this not confuse them? They haven't actually done anything wrong - but they were going to? How are we as responsible parents meant to manage this? If a child is running across the road despite attempts to stop it, are you then not able to give that child some corrective action? Would it not be more safe to get the child off the road first before doing anything? These rules are over the top and do not allow the discretion that the NZ public thought we would get. These rules will not stop family violence - in fact it may increase them because you will now be able to say - but they were going to do it so I had to smack them.
Bring Back The Wooden Spoon!
Ridiculous. Waste of time.The smacking policy is not going to stop those families who abuse their children, this even gives them the chance to rush home, shut the doors, and slam their children against the wall. Now this behaviour requires police attention. But smacking a child on the bottom after dashing out across a main road is a necessary action. We learn from the mistake at a young age if we are smacked A: it is unexpected, B: It leaves a little mark C: it stings for a bit D: we remind ourselves if we repeat our behaviour we might get another smack, so I might be good now.I babysit alot, and in my opinion the children are screaming out for discipline. They are foul mouthed, extremely rude, and have choice of what they want to eat, where they want to eat it and basically rule the house. I hope this stupid politically correct cycle hits the dust and we do a big U turn and bring back our morals to society.Love your children, discipline them, teach them respect and New Zealanders will be great people.
Daniel Ionita
I dearly wish to be the first with a criminal record as a result of the anti-smacking law (I have come first at very few things...). I deserve it and come out in this way publicly to confess to the police. The major issue is that I have no longer have an ungrateful little brat to beat the mickey out of...Our three children are successful well adjusted and productive members of society. Well two of them are, the third is at university. I obviously ruined them.Can I go to jail? I hope the law is retrospective.
Brenda Kumar
Hi, my name is Brenda and I am so against the law changes/ First of all, now parents will suddenly become criminals and children will get to roll the show.As for me, I will continue to discipline my kids. Who will anyone blame if any of my kids disobey the law. who else but the parents? I just don't understand 1 thing, why would anyone blame parents all the time for their kids bad behaviour instead of thinking, hang on: the law says "do not smack our children." Just because there are other parents out there who smacks their children until they had enough of smacking doesn't mean all parents are the same. There's more serious issues out there that it needs attention.I honestly think that it's stupid to turn parents into criminals because not all parents are the same.
Scott Lelievre
The smacking guidelines for the police show that the police will vigorously investigate any complaint of a parent smacking their children. So parents can expect they will be investigated for doing something that parents have been doing for centuries -- namely correcting their children. This is wrong, it will not prevent child abuse, it will criminalise ordinary parents and it will diminish the authority of parents. This has happened in schools since the abolition of corporal punishment -- as many as 30,000 children stood down, expelled, suspended last year alone from schools. Our schools have become more violent, not less violent, since corporal punishment was banned. I hope the next government restores section 59 -- so that parents can once again properly discipline their children.
CJ
The entire law is in opposition to the fast majority's opinion and an affront to personal liberties. "1984" here we come.
A victim of abuse
Observe how the other creatures of the earth chastise their young.This law makes criminals of humans exercising natural instinctive behaviour (which sexual and physical abuse is not!) and to top this all we are allocating much needed policing time to this ? Every parent will agree there is a huge difference between a smack, a hit or abuse. Worse abuse of a child is not being strong with the child when young and the child growing up with little or no self discipline. Are the makers of this law going to bear responsibility for what comes from this? Why do they think they are wiser than the elders from millennia before us? Has anyone met a 2 or 3 year old who understands time out? This at the very time the child adopts future behavioural patterns.Will the proposers of this law bear responsibility if this law has no effect on the real abuse of children - 'sexual and physical abuse'This law smacks of do gooding, voted in, high earning politicians justifying their existence. "a victim of physical and sexual abuse and deprived of a childhood."
Relic (Whangarei)
All Hail the mighty Helen! Well done... It is so wonderful that our Police have to have guidelines set on commonsense actions. Has our not so wonderful leader nestled in on stupidity in a broader way that was thought possible. Go the red party, go the greens and any other nambie pambie parties that have dictatorial beliefs. Look, to be real about any of this political dribble is beyond belief. Helen, for your own personal information the people of New Zealand do have a brain. Not everything needs to be legislated. Grow up or get out of politics.
---------------------------------------
This comment is the only one on the page (15 comments) which is pro the bill
Belinda (North Shore)
I think the smacking rules are justified and long overdue. This bill that has been passed and brought into effect will protect children from abuse. There are better methods of discipline than smacking like praise for good behaviour and an expression of disappointment for bad behavior. Children quickly opt for the praise, it's what they thrive on.
---------------------------------------
And a quick response to that...
Belinda, simply because "there are better methods of discipline than smacking" does not mean that smacking should therefore be criminalised. Yes, Children do thrive on praise; but is it good for them? Rules and guidelines which are fairly enforced are certainly just as - or more effective. You're in the minority Belinda, the minority opting for a state-governed family. Open up your eyes, this issue is not simply "to smack or not to smack", it is "who's job is child-rearing?"
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
Family First Press Release - MEDIA RELEASE - 19 June 2007
In response to the Police Press Release of 19 June 07
In response to the Police Press Release of 19 June 07
The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.
In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that "while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent."
"This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted," says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key."
The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that "until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law."
"If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing," says Mr McCoskrie.
"The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature."
"It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a "child" and what constitutes "reasonable force" will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we're back to the original section 59."
"The politicians have delivered a 'feel-good' law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the 'test case' of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ'ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse."
Everyday mums and dads to face the music
Article from www.stuff.co.nz 20 June 07
Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment.
Even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday.
The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.
It was passed with overwhelming support after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute "inconsequential" smacking.
But though that is recognised in the guidelines, there is no definition of "inconsequential", with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.
The advice says that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is "repetitive and frequent" and previous warnings or interventions have been ignored.
Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYFS.
Parents who are investigated for smacking that is found to be too trivial to prosecute will have their details handed to family violence officers.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.
"Who's going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying 'we're not sure', how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they're parenting within the law?"
But Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police "some context" in which to make decisions.
"Is it just once, is it very light, is it twice and very light, or is it twice and very heavy? It was never the intention that every occasion that someone ever lightly smacked would necessarily be prosecuted. I think that the police have walked that fine line here very well."
The guidelines say hitting with a weapon or implement, strikes to the head and kicking should "generally" be prosecuted. In borderline smacking cases, police should consider the child's age, maturity, ability to reason, physical development, health and sex and the circumstances that led to the use of force.
National's leader, John Key, said today his party would keep a close watch on developments.
"The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered," he said.
"But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required."
Mr Key said a National-led government would change the law if it was not working.
"The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an 'inconsequential' smack. That's what National signed up to, and that's still the case."
Monday, June 18, 2007
Bureaucratic Drivel
Charles Chauvel, 38 year old homosexual is co-chair of Labour's Rainbow Sector Council, the party's gay wing. He lives with his partner of 11 years on Wellington's Oriental Parade and speaks proudly of his one year old son.information & photo from nzherald.co.nz
Here is his (2 November 2006) response to a letter from my sister and myself to him (25 October). Notice he spells Lydia's name wrong.
-----------------------
Dear Andrew and Lyndia
Thankyou for taking the time to write to me on 25 October with your views concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1962. I do not happen to agree with your views but I appreciate having heard from you.
Yours sincerely
-----------------------
Oh yeah, this guy speaks for 83% of everyday mums and dads, Joe Bloggs Kiwi doesn't he. "Immature" was the first word that came to mind as I read this MPs pathetic drivel.
"I do not happen to agree with your views" - is this the thoughtless tripe that we pay MPs to say? They're there to represent the people... aren't they? Any MP's "views" should be the least of his concerns. They are in their position primarily to represent the views of the people.
----------------------------------------------
In a 15 November 2006 letter to my then 12 year old brother, Clayton Cosgrove wrote the following:Like the Prime Minister, I do not support a "ban on smacking", and this government has never proposed such a move.
Singing a different tune now, aren't we Mr. Cosgrove.
New study: 78% of Kiwis say "we will ignore the anti-smacking law"
Family First Media Release - www.familyfirst.org.nz
Click here to read the official results of the attitudes on parental discipline poll
Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.
29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.
“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.
When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know. 78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.
“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our
unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”
When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely. “This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”
“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.” As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.
“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
Click here to read the official results of the attitudes on parental discipline poll
Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.
These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.
29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.
“This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.
When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know. 78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.
“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our
unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”
When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely. “This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”
“The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.” As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.
“Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Tariana Turia and colonialism bashing
By Gary R, in Rantings from the Right 30 April 2007
Again, the co-leader of the Maori party deems it necessary to blame the colonialists and Christians. This time they are being blamed for introducing smacking as a form of discipline for children.
Turia forgot to mention that up until colonial times Maori practiced the ritual of Taiki which was done to remove the spiritual nature of a fetus so that infanticide could be performed 'safely' after the child was born.
Nice! I think I would rather be smacked thanks.
Again, the co-leader of the Maori party deems it necessary to blame the colonialists and Christians. This time they are being blamed for introducing smacking as a form of discipline for children.
Turia forgot to mention that up until colonial times Maori practiced the ritual of Taiki which was done to remove the spiritual nature of a fetus so that infanticide could be performed 'safely' after the child was born.
Nice! I think I would rather be smacked thanks.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Australian PM: "Smacking kids should not be outlawed"
from theage.com.au 8 June 07
Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn't want the practice outlawed.
Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn't want the practice outlawed.
Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.
After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.
A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.
Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: "No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.
"We were not into, sort of, physical discipline," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
"That's us. I'm not telling other parents how to run their lives."
The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.
"I do not believe the law should be changed.
"There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.
"But reasonable discipline is not abuse. Can't we just have a commonsense approach to these things?"
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Only 18% of Kiwis Support ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
Only 18% of Kiwis Support 'Anti-Smacking' Bill
Research New Zealand has released a poll today showing that only 18% of kiwis agree or strongly agree with Sue Bradford and the Prime Minister's anti-smacking bill currently before parliament.
"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past 2 years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ."Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 82% of kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the 'anti-smacking' bill."
This is also backed up by a text message poll run by the Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend which found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.
"The message is clear to our politicians," says Mr McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research – namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."
Family First calls on all MP's to vote to defend the role of parents and the well-being of children while tackling the actual causes of child abuse.
---------------------------
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency
from www.familyfirst.org.nz
MEDIA RELEASE 28 MAY 2007
The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.
In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won't the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM's response was "…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the
problem is with those who drink far too much."
We agree. Kiwi parents would agree.
"This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. "Why was the PM's logic not used in the smacking debate?" "As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, 'highly law abiding parents' are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a 'fundamental' law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up."
"If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent."
"The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making," says Mr McCoskrie.
MEDIA RELEASE 28 MAY 2007
The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.
In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won't the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM's response was "…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the
problem is with those who drink far too much."
We agree. Kiwi parents would agree.
"This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. "Why was the PM's logic not used in the smacking debate?" "As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, 'highly law abiding parents' are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a 'fundamental' law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up."
"If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent."
"The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making," says Mr McCoskrie.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Craig Smith: the enemy of freedom - NZ heading the way of the USSR
A very important article by Craig Smith of Family Integrity 25 May 07. Well worth the read.
The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.
That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.
Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have "re-education" programmes or new "safety" programmes to help children understand their rights. I've talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this "anti-parent" message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn't want to do.
Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more wll known. Click here to read the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child . Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to -- regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate -- because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don't want others putting the ideas in your children's heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their "homes", some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children's minds with insane ideas. I'm not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise "correction" even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it's not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.
Now, the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,
"I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children's issues using
processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems."
I'd have to agree: we've come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National's John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children's issues. Kiro's job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.
Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: "Who's in charge when it comes to children? ...[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare...If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors."
Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After contratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child's life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater." I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach tomonitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential," says Dr Kiro.
This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively -- and compulsorily -- assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro's Information Hub and can be accessed by various "professionals" such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)
So, just as the Children's Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they've said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy...there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, "The Tyranny of the Small Steps". We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we've seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don't have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense...and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children's Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That's also part of the social engineering scheme.
The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.
That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.
Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have "re-education" programmes or new "safety" programmes to help children understand their rights. I've talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this "anti-parent" message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn't want to do.
Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more wll known. Click here to read the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child . Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to -- regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate -- because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don't want others putting the ideas in your children's heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their "homes", some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children's minds with insane ideas. I'm not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise "correction" even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it's not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.
Now, the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,
"I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children's issues using
processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems."
I'd have to agree: we've come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National's John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children's issues. Kiro's job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.
Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: "Who's in charge when it comes to children? ...[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare...If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors."
Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After contratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child's life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater." I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach tomonitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential," says Dr Kiro.
This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively -- and compulsorily -- assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro's Information Hub and can be accessed by various "professionals" such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)
So, just as the Children's Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they've said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy...there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, "The Tyranny of the Small Steps". We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we've seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don't have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense...and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children's Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That's also part of the social engineering scheme.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Freedom
FREEDOM
Everybody wants freedom – freedom from debt, freedom from responsibilities, freedom from bad relationships, freedom to do as you please. But freedom is a paradox. To be truly free, you have to submit to something. To be free to play beautiful music, you have to submit to the rules of music. To be free to love someone, you have to submit to their desires. To have social freedom, everybody has to submit to the just laws of the society they live in.
Another way of saying this, is that you cannot have freedom without form. There must be limits and controls on freedom or else it degenerates into chaos. God has established these limits with an absolute standard of right and wrong, which is represented in the Ten Commandments. The laws of New Zealand were originally based on this standard, as they were in other countries with a Christian heritage. It is this that has given us social freedoms – freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of choice. The problem is that our society has pretty much abandoned the divine standard that these freedoms were built on, yet we expect the freedoms to remain. We are dreaming.
As we abandon God's moral standard, it is reflected in our society. We scratch our heads and wonder why we have all the social problems that now afflict us, when the answer is staring us in the face. But we refuse to submit to the forms that would prevent this chaos. Instead we abandon them in the name of freedom!
The end result will inevitably be the same as we have seen throughout history and throughout the world when God's ways have been abandoned – either anarchy or tyranny. For instance, how many Communist countries can you name that haven't governed by tyranny! Some would say that our present government is already subtly taking us down this path.
What does this have to do with faith? We can only save our country if we as individuals are saved. The Bible says about Jesus Christ that "there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved". Jesus Christ came into this world and died on the cross to set people free – free from the penalty and guilt of sin, free to love and serve God and others. Belief in Jesus as the Lord of the universe and as your personal saviour brings freedom.
By Lloyd McGarvey, Hokitika
Key Sells out on Smacking
from www.libertarianz.org.nz 2 May 07
Bernard Darnton - Libertarianz Leader
Party leader Bernard Darnton today confirmed that Libertarianz opposes John Key's sell-out on the anti-smacking bill.
"John Key is utterly worthless. I have no idea why he doesn't just join the Labour Party," Darnton said in disgust.
"Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill effectively nationalises New Zealand's children by removing parental discretion in how to raise them. It is 'nanny state' in its most literal form. Helen Clark's amendment, which John Key has lapdoggedly pursued, does nothing to change that."
"All this amendment does is give Police discretion in deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest. As ministers of the current government already know, the Police already have that power."
"The amended bill will not necessarily prevent the Police from prosecuting trivial cases. It will not prevent CYF from making its victims' lives a misery. It will not prevent private prosecutions – against which there will now be no defence - from malicious ex-spouses. It will not make the tiniest bit of difference to those who already seriously assault their children."
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
MPs discussion in the 3rd reading - Hansard
from familyintegrity.blogspot.com
Hansard is now up for the 3rd reading
or more specifically:
Child Abuse—Child, Youth and Family Discretion
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill Third Reading
Points of Order Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
and
Voting Correction
Hansard is now up for the 3rd reading
or more specifically:
Child Abuse—Child, Youth and Family Discretion
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill Third Reading
Points of Order Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
and
Voting Correction
Dyson: "Bradford's bill does not change the legality of smacking"
Judy Turner (United Future MP):
Do the guidelines used by her department focus on the amount of force used, which is not reclassified in the new amendment to section 59, or on the intention and thinking of the parent, which will be changed in today's amendment?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour MP, Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF):
The member seems to be confusing section 59 of the Crimes Act, which is actually a defence against an assault charge brought by police, with the statutory role as outlined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.
Rodney Hide (Leader, ACT Party) :
Can the Minister confirm for the benefit of parents and, indeed, children up and down New Zealand that should the anti-smacking bill pass into legislation, a parent smacking his or her toddler will be committing an offence under the Crimes Act, irrespective of the directions to Child, Youth and Family and irrespective of whether the police decide to prosecute?
Hon RUTH DYSON:
This member has also demonstrated his lack of understanding of section 59, which is a defence against an assault charge. Nothing in Sue Bradford's bill, which Parliament will be debating later this afternoon, changes the legality or otherwise of smacking.
-----------------------------------
What a pack of lies. Two MPs ask for clarification on what Bradford's bill will mean for parents, and Dyson simply dodges the question by questioning the MP's understanding of the bill.
Bradford's bill will change the legality of smacking, Dyson. Smacking (reasonable force in the circumstances) - once a legal option for child discipline, will now be illegal, and subject to prosecution, or the terrible prosepect of having one's children ripped away from you.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Winston Peters: Smacking Bill Will Not Achieve Intended Aims
16 May 2007
New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters today reiterated his belief in the right of his fellow caucus members to exercise a conscience vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill and offered an explanation as to why he would be voting against it at its third reading.
"I believe that the process the bill has taken through parliament has been fundamentally flawed partly due to parties whipping their members in to line rather than allowing them a conscience vote," said Mr Peters."'Smacking' is already a crime under current legislation and careful reading of the proposed bill shows that it will not achieve the aims that the member sponsoring it would like it to. The problem with the bill is that while it will allow 'light smacking', it will do so under circumstances almost impossible to interpret.
"It is my view that, although the existing law would benefit from being amended, Sue Bradford's proposal provides no real and workable solution.
"For the reasons outlined above I will not be supporting the bill at its third reading," concluded Mr Peters.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The good, the Bad and the Ugly:
Repeal in Pictures
Clark: Prime Minister
"I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle"from www.investigatemagazine.com
Simon Barnet, MoreFM Radio
UNICEF lists the key factors for child abuse as: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. Smacking is not even mentioned!Larry Baldock: Future NZ
New Zealand is a democracy! 80% of everyday Kiwis don't want Bradford's bill, so we will have a referendum!Hone Harawira, Maori MP
Before white man came, we let our kids go wherever they wanted.Bradford, Green MP
A light smack is child abuse!The hug
With you all the way Sue...The handshake
Welcome my son... Welcome to the Machine!Katherine Rich, National MP
Section 59 let parents off for beating their children with planks of wood and horse-whips, to within an inch of their lives...Cindy Kiro, "children's commissioner"
"well I think umm... if you know what a light smack is, [then there is] probably nothing much [wrong with it]"from Campbell Live interview
John Key, leader of National Party
Peace in our time!Unless indicated with quotation marks, captions are to be read as comments, not quotes.
Clark/Bradford: a dodgy agenda.
The ridiculous thing about this new law is that the Government permits you to smack your child. You may use force in a vast number of situations with your children. Any situation but a smack for the purpose of correction. What has Parliament got against correction?
Bradford/Clark are quite clear on their agenda. Their goal is that children would one day not be part of families, but all part of the state. They are desperate to remove authority from parents, and achieve this by increasing the power of the state (CYFS in this case).
--------------------------------
Here's a quote from Helen Clark which is the opposite of what she is saying now:
And the quote from www.investigatemagazine.com where she states that children would destroy her lifestyle:
Helen Clark: “I’ve never had any intention of having a child. I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle. It’s inconceivable that I would become pregnant. I realise my attitude is unusual, but I have other interests which crowd out everything else, and I think I’d go around the bend if my small amount of spare time was taken up by children.
----------------------------
Bradford/Clark are quite clear on their agenda. Their goal is that children would one day not be part of families, but all part of the state. They are desperate to remove authority from parents, and achieve this by increasing the power of the state (CYFS in this case).
--------------------------------
Here's a quote from Helen Clark which is the opposite of what she is saying now:
Helen Clark on Radio Rhema, 2005 interview with Bob McCoskrie
Helen Clark: A lot of people aren't comfortable with beatings but they don't want to see, you know, stressed and harassed parents, you know, pulled in by the police because they, they smacked a child.
Bob MCroskie: So you do not want to see smacking banned?
Helen Clark: Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature.
----------------------------
And the quote from www.investigatemagazine.com where she states that children would destroy her lifestyle:
Helen Clark: “I’ve never had any intention of having a child. I definitely see children as destroying my lifestyle. It’s inconceivable that I would become pregnant. I realise my attitude is unusual, but I have other interests which crowd out everything else, and I think I’d go around the bend if my small amount of spare time was taken up by children.
----------------------------
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Queen's Council, Mr. Illingsworth instructs on the new Section 59
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion
regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said "The difficulty with the section is that it does not
tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most
ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from
continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing
harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation
because it would mean that the section is self contradictory."
"This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat
artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of
language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This
is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends
"correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence,
that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2)."
"The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be
extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to
correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't
know what is."
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and
how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won't buy
that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which
brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the
police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the
supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to
prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive
behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not
"correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother's head. Mum tells him to go to
his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has
to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the
room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent
have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour
towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the
child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too
has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
"The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law," says Mr
McCoskrie. "This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within
the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking
- despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change."
regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said "The difficulty with the section is that it does not
tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most
ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from
continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing
harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation
because it would mean that the section is self contradictory."
"This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat
artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of
language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This
is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends
"correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence,
that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2)."
"The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be
extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to
correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't
know what is."
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and
how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won't buy
that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which
brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the
police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the
supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to
prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive
behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not
"correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother's head. Mum tells him to go to
his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has
to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the
room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent
have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour
towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the
child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too
has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
"The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law," says Mr
McCoskrie. "This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within
the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking
- despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change."
Bob McCoskrie on the Repeal
from www.stuff.co.nz
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 May 2007
Bob McCoskrie smacks his children, and Sue Bradford's law change won't make him stop.
The national director of Family First New Zealand, a vociferous opponent of the Green MP's bill to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act, said the "confusing legislation" that passed last night would not changed the way he disciplined his three children - just the way he described it.
"I'll continue to do it in a reasonable way and I'll continue to do it as a back-up when other non-physical methods of discipline haven't worked."
After obtaining an opinion from Queen's Counsel Grant Illingworth, Family First cautioned parents yesterday not to incriminate themselves to police.
Mr McCoskrie said that, under the amendment, parents could still use reasonable force for the purpose of prevention, but not for correction.
"What the QC is saying is that if you ever do get prosecuted for giving a light smack, simply say it was for the purpose of preventing bad behaviour, not correcting bad behaviour, which shows just how ridiculous the law is."
Supporters of the bill relaxed yesterday as it passed with greater political support than initially expected.
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was hugely relieved.
She had supported outright repeal of section 59 and had some reservations about how the amendment would be interpreted, but was happy a compromise had been reached to "allay the fears that had been whipped up among parents around criminalisation".
Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said he was delighted, but the challenge now was to ensure parents were equipped to deal with behavioural problems without resorting to force.
In a rearguard action against the amendment, opponents yesterday took out full-page newspaper advertisements seeking signatures to force a referendum on child discipline at the next election.
The advertisements warned parents that they would be criminalised if they smacked their children, and said police had confirmed they would have to investigate any complaints made against parents who smacked or put their children in time out.
But Police Association president Greg O'Connor said he had been misquoted.
Police would continue to investigate complaints of assault - just as they always had - but putting a child in time-out would not land a parent in jail.
Chester Borrows Congratulates Sue
Chester Borrows "who for many months was at the vanguard of opposition to the bill," gives Sue Bradford a hug after the passing of the anti-smacking bill.
Reminds me of another such photo.
Photo from New Zealand Herald
Smacking: now work starts, says Bradford
From the New Zealand Herald 17/5/07
Sue Bradford's two-year battle to convince her fellow MPs to pass the anti-smacking bill came to an end last night but the Green MP said the work to persuade parents of the virtues of the law change was just beginning.
In the end, what was previously a highly contentious bill was approved with only a few murmurs of discontent. After a compromise hammered out between Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key two weeks ago, Ms Bradford's member's bill sailed through its third and final reading 113-8.
Act MPs Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, independent MPs Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland, New Zealand First MPs Winston Peters, Ron Mark and Pita Paraone, and United Future MP Judy Turner opposed the bill.
The law change will not come into force for a month. Ms Bradford said those four weeks and the period after the bill's enactment should see an intensive education process for parents.
[Four weeks? You need something more like four years for this education process to work! ]
"This is very much the end of the beginning. There are a whole lot of things that need to happen in terms of public education in what this bill actually means. We also need to be monitoring what this legislation means for Child, Youth and Family and for the police."
Under the law change, the existing defence available to parents and caregivers charged with assaulting a child - that they were using reasonable force for the purposes of correction - will be removed.
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia told Parliament that defence needed to be struck from the law books because of cases like Ngatikaura Ngati. The child's mother and her partner are awaiting sentence after being found guilty of manslaughter.
"The High Court in Auckland heard how a boy of 3 years old was subjected to regular beatings using a baseball bat, a vacuum cleaner pipe, rods and a wooden spoon, and punched repeatedly in the face," Mrs Turia said.
"The couple convicted of manslaughter used section 59 of the Crimes Act as their defense, claiming that they only ever used reasonable force. As long as we have people who are prepared to administer beatings so savage that a child's blood splatters on to the ceiling and who are then able to defend that callous brutality as a reasonable punishment, then this nation is in deep trouble."
[Maybe so, but their use of section 59 didn't work, did it. S59 served its purpose, this case was obviously NOT reasonable force.]
National Wanganui MP Chester Borrows, who for many months was at the vanguard of opposition to the bill, said a "pig's ear" of a bill had not quite been turned into a silk purse. "Those parents who were worried that this legislation would criminalise lightly smacking a child can rest assured that Parliament's intention is that that should not be the case," he said.
The law change will be reviewed after two years and Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove said that would ensure the bill was a process and not a destination.
"The signal that this house is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizeable majority of votes in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful and loud message is sent to our communities, loud and clear."
National MP Katherine Rich said if hitting children was the answer, many people had asked the wrong question.
Act leader Rodney Hide said the bill would make it a crime to smack a child and remove any defence under law for parents who lightly smacked their child.
"I don't think it is Parliament's role to say to a mum or a dad that if they lightly tap their toddler on the bottom, that they are committing a criminal offence and that they shouldn't do it. This is actually what this bill says: not only that they shouldn't do it but that they are committing a crime in so doing."
After the vote, Ms Bradford was elated but exhausted. "I'm still slightly disbelieving but thrilled we've made it," she said. "I never dreamed we would have 113 votes in favour."
Against The Bill:
Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Judy Turner
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
"It's the people against Parliament"
Sue Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes act
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.
...Everyday mums and dads.
The bill for repeal passes with
113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First
8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.
...Everyday mums and dads.
The bill for repeal passes with
113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First
8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)
Lindsay's message to National
from lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
The Act MPs come from a libertarian tradition and believe that the bill not only criminalises parents who smack but that it is an example of state interference in people's lives.
Thanks to National's compromise (that's right, the party that purports to believe in 'personal freedom') today power will be transferred from judges and juries (the people) to the police and CYF (the state). This isn't the trifling matter some think. God knows we need to do something about a small group of people who are not fit to be parents but that doesn't mean we have to submit to the state a massive degree of control over good and functioning families. There is absolutely no need to go this far.
And another thing John Key. You have opened the door to much, much more. Having succeeded with this folly the likes of the Children's Commissioner, Barnardos, Bradford et al will move to pushing for compulsory school checks. Then they won't need to wait for a report on a child - they can make their own. They will run the same stunts they used this time. Distorting figures, whipping up hysteria over what is, again, a problem being generated by a very small percentage of families.
You say you have saved the people from being "hung out to dry". No you haven't. You have just rolled over in the first of many battles the state will wage against innocent families. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs - now the War on Child Abuse. More harm than good will come of it. Considerably more.
Good on Audrey Young for properly describing ACT's opposition to the anti-smacking bill;
The Act MPs come from a libertarian tradition and believe that the bill not only criminalises parents who smack but that it is an example of state interference in people's lives.
Thanks to National's compromise (that's right, the party that purports to believe in 'personal freedom') today power will be transferred from judges and juries (the people) to the police and CYF (the state). This isn't the trifling matter some think. God knows we need to do something about a small group of people who are not fit to be parents but that doesn't mean we have to submit to the state a massive degree of control over good and functioning families. There is absolutely no need to go this far.
And another thing John Key. You have opened the door to much, much more. Having succeeded with this folly the likes of the Children's Commissioner, Barnardos, Bradford et al will move to pushing for compulsory school checks. Then they won't need to wait for a report on a child - they can make their own. They will run the same stunts they used this time. Distorting figures, whipping up hysteria over what is, again, a problem being generated by a very small percentage of families.
You say you have saved the people from being "hung out to dry". No you haven't. You have just rolled over in the first of many battles the state will wage against innocent families. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs - now the War on Child Abuse. More harm than good will come of it. Considerably more.
Gordon Copeland quits United Future
from tvnz.co.nz
United Future MP Gordon Copeland is set to quit United Future over the anti-smacking bill.
The decision leaves the government in a precarious situation. The recent defection of Taito Philip Field and now Copeland leaves the government in a true minority.
It is understood the MP is planning to start a new political party with a former one-term United Future MP Larry Baldock.
The catalyst for his departure is the anti-smacking bill, which will get its final reading on Wednesday. Both men vehemently oppose the amendment watering down the bill.
Copeland will stay on as an independent
Earlier this weka another United Future MP, Judy Turner, said she would oppose the anti-smacking bill when it had its final reading in parliament.
While she believes the compromise amendment reinforcing discretionary powers for police was a good move she is concerned it doesn't also apply to Child Youth and Family.
Turner says not enough has changed at CYF to reassure her parents are safe from prosecution for lightly smacking their children.
---------------------
The new party that Baldock and Copeland are said to be starting sounds like a very good thing. At last some principled politicians, not this vote-winning, socialist hugging National party, or the weak-kneed Peter Dunne.
"John Key Has Betrayed My Family"
from newzeal.blogspot.com
Far from winning a great victory, National leader John Key has betrayed every parent of young kids in this country.
By forcing National MPs to vote for Sue Bradford's miniscually amended anti-smacking bill, he has killed virtually any chance of abolishing the bill after the next election.
I have always been loathe to criticise John Key. It is not smart to aggravate those you wish to govern with.
However as the parent of two pre-schoolers I feel truly let down by someone I expected better of.
John Key could have taken the Thatcher/Reagan road. He could have told Clark and Bradford to pass their corrupt bill. He could have stuck to his guns and promised the nation he would repeal the bill immediately after winning the '08 election.
He could have but he didn't.
Rodney Hide is not happy either.
From the ACT website
ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill.
"It's all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it's wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.
"I don't believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there's only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.
"Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
"The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.
"Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford's Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.
"It's an atrocious Bill. That's why we need a free vote" said Rodney Hide.
---------------------------
Trevor's right. John Key has betrayed ALL New Zealand families by supporting a new piece of law which is...
the threat of prosecution for carrying out their normal parental responsibilities.
Groups Seek Support for Smacking Referendum
15 MAY 2007
Pro-family Groups Seek Public Support for Referendum on Smacking Bill
Family First NZ and For the Sake of Our Children Trust are publishing full page advertisements in the four major daily newspapers tomorrow in an attempt to get the extra 120,000 signatures necessary to force a Referendum on the issues of child abuse and parental correction.
"The message we are getting from the public is that the anti-smacking bill, and all its amendments, is still going to result in good parents being treated as law breakers," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The bill is misguided, confusing, and runs counter to scientific evidence and international experience."
"NZ'ers are frustrated and annoyed that politicians are wasting valuable time criminalising good parents for correcting their children, while at the same time refusing to deal with the far greater issues affecting the safety of our children such as gang violence, drug and alcohol abuse, increasing levels of violence in schools, and family breakdown," says Mr McCoskrie.
The organisers of the Referendum already have 180,000 signatures in only 3 months, and have another 9 months to get the remaining 120,000 signatures required.
Mr McCoskrie says it is ironic that a petition for more daylight saving gained 42,000 signatures and the government almost tripped over itself in its rush to extend daylight saving. Yet here is a petition signed by more than four times that amount of people, and the politicians have suddenly gone deaf.
"The politicians are relying on the apathy of NZ'ers to make this issue go away by the time of the next election. But NZ'ers are sick of 'feel good' policies and reviews which achieve nothing. This Referendum will mean that all politicians will be held accountable by the voters at the next General election, and will place the issues of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse right at the centre of the election agenda."
The advertisement can be viewed at: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Parents%20Don%27t%20Accept%20Bill%20Herald.pdf
Why The Anti-Smacking Bill Is A Good Thing
by Garnet Milne
from reformationtestimony.org.nz
from reformationtestimony.org.nz
As the attack by teenagers on Police in Nelson yesterday has shown, New Zealand society, starting with the youth, is becoming increasingly ill-disciplined. Yet parliament which removed corporal punishment by schools is about to outlaw it in the family also – even though, in a certain sense, the family is the very foundation of any society.
This evening the New Zealand parliament will approve new legislation which will make it an offence to smack one's own child. Once this legislation passes anyone who chooses rather to obey God's instruction concerning child-rearing will be deemed to have committed a criminal act when they smack their child for any purpose (Ac 5:29). The only sop offered to the 85% of New Zealanders who oppose this bill is some vague comment that the police will use their discretion when it comes to prosecuting parents who commit minor breaches of the new law. Nonetheless, there are many who will consider the passing of this draconian God-denying legislation a good thing. So let us survey why the anti-parenting bill, hatched by Labour and the Greens, and now embraced in the same nest by the main opposition party under John Key, might be deemed a good thing.
Many have written negatively about the anti-smacking, anti-parent bill promoted by former Workers Communist League comrade Sue Bradford, now a Green member of parliament. Plainly, for Mrs Bradford the anti-parenting bill is a good thing because it ensures that parents lose control over their own kids.
Good Little Communists
A major goal of any Marxist or communist like Mrs Bradford is to ensure that the proletariat (the masses) are indoctrinated from an early age in the principles of communism. Behind this desire is the need of the good Marxist to control all facets of society. Since religion is deemed to be the "opiate of the people", ways must be found to discourage such troublesome views which tend to thrust a spanner in the workings of Maoist collectivism (actually the control of power by the elite). But the communist has a problem at this point. Even if one possesses the reigns of power, it would not be considered good form to openly persecute Christians for their religious principles by throwing them into jail. No, a more subtle, a more surreptitious approach must be found which will achieve the same result. A method will do which gives the appearance of human kindness but which instead will undermine the moral fibre of society, breaking down the family hierarchy. This method has been used successfully in New Zealand in a number of social engineering experiments in recent decades. Abortion on demand came about predicated on the argument that if hospitals would not provide supervised abortions performed by trained medical staff, desperate women would risk death by having recourse to back street abortionists. Prostitution was legalised because, it was argued, women would not be protected from abuse and would not have access to good health care if prostitution remained outlawed. Thirdly, parliament legalised homosexuality on the premise that what same-sex couples did in the privacy of their own homes would not hurt anyone else, so "let's just let homosexuals do their thing. When they do it, the rest of society won't be affected will it?" It is no coincidence that Sue Bradford was a prime promoter of homosexual marriage legislation; the legalising of prostitution; and has uttered not a squeak about the killing of the unborn in our hospitals. We can well assume that has she been around at the time, Mrs Bradford would have been at the forefront of pushing for the legalising of abortion on demand.
These arguments were as effective as they were fallacious. In all cases laws were repealed and substituted with permission to commit evil. That some women committed criminal acts to kill their unborn children is hardly justification for killing 16,000 babies every year in New Zealand; that legalising prostitution would allegedly make it safer for the prostitute has proved to be a lie. Now more underage girls are sucked into the morass of evil, and illicit prostitution still flourishes even more in the twilight zone. STDs and AIDS infections continue to multiply among prostitutes and homosexuals. Moreover, that homosexuality would not affect non-homosexual society has proved to be a myth. Marriage, that sacred bedrock of society, has been sullied and cheapened as lawmakers have made homosexual unions and de facto relationships on a par with marriage in the law. Homosexuals are now elected to parliament or appointed on party lists and have a disproportionate influence on the direction of social policy. The chief film censor is both a homosexual and ironically the guardian of the nation's morals. The sorts of films and videos he and his office approve demonstrates clearly that he considers sexual perversion perfectly normal and acceptable.
Click here to read the rest of the articleTuesday, May 15, 2007
Rodney Hide: Letter to Key, Clark
from www.act.org.nz
14 May 2007
Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings
Dear Helen and John
On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.
The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.
In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.
John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
"If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?"
It's a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford's Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.
John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn't it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.
Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday:
"…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there..."
If it is truly the "overwhelming majority" of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don't, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.
ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That's ridiculous. The Bill's purpose makes this clear. It is to:
"Make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction."
Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.
New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn't change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way. All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.
The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It's simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.
I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus' a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472
www.RodneyHide.com
www.act.org.nz
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Kiwis want to keep Section 59
1. Parents/families should keep the right to opperate as entities seperate from the state, and they can decide how they raise their own children.
2. 68% to 83% of the population of New Zealand also believes this.
3. Repealing Section 59 is not going to reduce child abuse. Child abuse is already illegal. Beating, hitting, punching, kicking children is un-acceptable.
4. The good mums and dads of New Zealand do not hit their children around the head with planks of wood. They do not whip them with horse-whips.
5. But these decent law-abiding citizens are exactly the people being targeted by the Clark/Bradford.
2. 68% to 83% of the population of New Zealand also believes this.
3. Repealing Section 59 is not going to reduce child abuse. Child abuse is already illegal. Beating, hitting, punching, kicking children is un-acceptable.
4. The good mums and dads of New Zealand do not hit their children around the head with planks of wood. They do not whip them with horse-whips.
5. But these decent law-abiding citizens are exactly the people being targeted by the Clark/Bradford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)