Our Moral Foundation
Judge Roy Moore
World Net Daily Exclusive Commentary
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57264
When good parenting becomes a crime .
Posted: August 22, 2007
Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.
The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."
In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government
Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.
Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.
In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."
The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.
Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.
The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).
Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Everyday mums and dads now in the firing line
Source: Family First
NZ Herald August 14, 2007
When Karyn Scherer's 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door. But that's what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111. The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm. READ MORE
Karyn Scherer : No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking READ MORE
"I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right ."
NZ Herald August 14, 2007
When Karyn Scherer's 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door. But that's what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111. The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm. READ MORE
Karyn Scherer : No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking READ MORE
"I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right ."
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
First Govt. - now schools invading, legislating against everyday families
from www.northernadvocate.co.nz | 11.08.2007
Two Kaipara schools and a small playgroup have made a clear stand they won't tolerate child abuse in their community.
Aranga School principal Myle Ferris is challenging every New Zealander to lobby parliament for better resources to prevent such senseless and abhorrent acts and to increase sentences for those who commit them.
"Words cannot express my disgust at the cowardly, gutless behaviour of those who beat young children," said Mr Ferris.
Aranga School and Aranga Playgroup, along with Te Kopuru School, supported the nationwide three-minute silence at 12.12pm on Wednesday which acknowledged the death of little Nia Glassie, a victim of domestic violence.
Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment and what they should do if they felt unsafe or afraid.
"We have made them aware of their rights and have told them we are here for them if they need to talk about anything," he said. The school newsletter repeated the anti-abuse message.
"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities.
"It's time the Government and its agencies stepped up and acted to prevent future tragedies of this kind. We want the government to increase the penalties to abusers of defenceless children; we demand they work toward the removal of drugs from our communities, because we know that much of this abuse stems from substance abuse by parents."
------------------------
"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities." - Says who?
"Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment" - Nanny State
Ferris, Aranga school, your hearts appear to be in the right place. However handing over even more power to Nanny State is not the answer to our problem of Child abuse. Many of these Beaurocrats are social engineers, tinkering with our Nation's families, digging their hands deeper into our pockets and invading good, functioning families as we see in these two cases below "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and " No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".
Two Kaipara schools and a small playgroup have made a clear stand they won't tolerate child abuse in their community.
Aranga School principal Myle Ferris is challenging every New Zealander to lobby parliament for better resources to prevent such senseless and abhorrent acts and to increase sentences for those who commit them.
"Words cannot express my disgust at the cowardly, gutless behaviour of those who beat young children," said Mr Ferris.
Aranga School and Aranga Playgroup, along with Te Kopuru School, supported the nationwide three-minute silence at 12.12pm on Wednesday which acknowledged the death of little Nia Glassie, a victim of domestic violence.
Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment and what they should do if they felt unsafe or afraid.
"We have made them aware of their rights and have told them we are here for them if they need to talk about anything," he said. The school newsletter repeated the anti-abuse message.
"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities.
"It's time the Government and its agencies stepped up and acted to prevent future tragedies of this kind. We want the government to increase the penalties to abusers of defenceless children; we demand they work toward the removal of drugs from our communities, because we know that much of this abuse stems from substance abuse by parents."
------------------------
"We have to get away from thinking it's the parents' responsibility to bring up their child - its actually the community's. The community needs to be ever vigilant to child abuse and to report any such abuse to the authorities." - Says who?
"Mr Ferris said he and his staff had explained to pupils what was an acceptable home environment" - Nanny State
Ferris, Aranga school, your hearts appear to be in the right place. However handing over even more power to Nanny State is not the answer to our problem of Child abuse. Many of these Beaurocrats are social engineers, tinkering with our Nation's families, digging their hands deeper into our pockets and invading good, functioning families as we see in these two cases below "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and " No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".
The anti-smacking bill fear - the nanny state
from www.geekzone.co.nz | 14 Aug
This is not a technology blog post - be warned. It's almost a political statement. It is here to let our PMs know I am not a supporter of the so-called Anti Smacking-bill.
Why? Because it terrorises parents, spreading fear that a idiot neighbour (which I don't think we have any) or badly informed citizen can just call the Emergency services number and report a parent with "hearsay", for something that every child do, such as a tantrum or a bed time crying.
A good example is this story on New Zealand Herald, "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and "No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".
My daugther Isabella cries in the morning. She cries when she doesn't want to go to bed. She cries in the middle of the night to let us know she wants some milk. She can't speak yet, so she does one of the things she can to communicate with us. to catch our attention when we are not looking - because she's really good at baby sign language I must say, but it only works when we are looking at her, obviously.
I don't believe the anti-smacking bill will make child abuse in New Zealand go away. Parents who were accused of having killed children are not worried about what can happen to then if they smack a child - because they do worst things as we have seen in the latest stories of toddlers being taken to hospitals just to die a few days later.
That is not smacking. That's beating. That's abusing.
I told my wife one evening that I was thinking a police officer would knock in our door, and if that happen I would happily say "Great you are here officer. We need a baby sitter". Not really. We don't. And we don't need a nanny state that is worried with small things while people go around killing children.
This is not a technology blog post - be warned. It's almost a political statement. It is here to let our PMs know I am not a supporter of the so-called Anti Smacking-bill.
Why? Because it terrorises parents, spreading fear that a idiot neighbour (which I don't think we have any) or badly informed citizen can just call the Emergency services number and report a parent with "hearsay", for something that every child do, such as a tantrum or a bed time crying.
A good example is this story on New Zealand Herald, "Toddler tantrum brings three cops knocking " and "No I don't abuse my kids but thanks for checking".
My daugther Isabella cries in the morning. She cries when she doesn't want to go to bed. She cries in the middle of the night to let us know she wants some milk. She can't speak yet, so she does one of the things she can to communicate with us. to catch our attention when we are not looking - because she's really good at baby sign language I must say, but it only works when we are looking at her, obviously.
I don't believe the anti-smacking bill will make child abuse in New Zealand go away. Parents who were accused of having killed children are not worried about what can happen to then if they smack a child - because they do worst things as we have seen in the latest stories of toddlers being taken to hospitals just to die a few days later.
That is not smacking. That's beating. That's abusing.
I told my wife one evening that I was thinking a police officer would knock in our door, and if that happen I would happily say "Great you are here officer. We need a baby sitter". Not really. We don't. And we don't need a nanny state that is worried with small things while people go around killing children.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Hundreds in Ashburton stand together against child abuse
This article from www.theashburtonguardian.co.nz August 9 2007
Hundreds of people across the Ashburton District stood in silence for three minutes yesterday as part of a national protest against child abuse.
At 12 minutes past midday, people left their places of work, parked their cars, came out of their homes in every corner of New Zealand, to send a clear message to abusive parents that the ordinary New Zealander has had enough.
The three minutes' silence was organsied by lobby groups Family First NZ, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and For the Sake of Our Children Trust.
The three minutes represented the three years of the life of Rotorua toddler Nia Glassie who died last week from injuries allegedly inflicted by members of her extended family.
The time of day was chosen as it signified the 12 children who die from child abuse each year in New Zealand.
In Ashburton schools and pre-schools also encouraged students to take part in the national protest.
For the Sake of Our Children spokeswoman Christine Rankin said the nationwide vigil had been a success.
Child abusers needed to be given harsher jail terms and prohibited from ever raising children again, she said.
"If they have (more children) they should be taken away immediately — remove the child as soon as it's born."
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar agreed with the call for tougher penalties for child abuse.
"We know deterrent sentences work; they've worked in seatbelts and they've worked in speeding, they'll work here as well."
He said he believed an urgent bill to increase jail terms for child abusers would appear before parliament shortly.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie said organisers deliberately planned the protest to be as simple as possible, so that wherever people were they could take a moment to reflect on how they could make a difference to the child abuse problem.
"Let's face it — the three minutes was a symbolic gesture, but it was really designed to change the mindsets of people, from pointing the finger and 'Who's to blame?' to 'How can I be part of the solution?'"
 |
| Inner town workers and shoppers joined together yesterday in East Street to observe three minutes' silence to re-enforce their desire for New Zealand to take action against its high levels of child abuse. |
Hundreds of people across the Ashburton District stood in silence for three minutes yesterday as part of a national protest against child abuse.
At 12 minutes past midday, people left their places of work, parked their cars, came out of their homes in every corner of New Zealand, to send a clear message to abusive parents that the ordinary New Zealander has had enough.
The three minutes' silence was organsied by lobby groups Family First NZ, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and For the Sake of Our Children Trust.
The three minutes represented the three years of the life of Rotorua toddler Nia Glassie who died last week from injuries allegedly inflicted by members of her extended family.
The time of day was chosen as it signified the 12 children who die from child abuse each year in New Zealand.
In Ashburton schools and pre-schools also encouraged students to take part in the national protest.
For the Sake of Our Children spokeswoman Christine Rankin said the nationwide vigil had been a success.
Child abusers needed to be given harsher jail terms and prohibited from ever raising children again, she said.
"If they have (more children) they should be taken away immediately — remove the child as soon as it's born."
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar agreed with the call for tougher penalties for child abuse.
"We know deterrent sentences work; they've worked in seatbelts and they've worked in speeding, they'll work here as well."
He said he believed an urgent bill to increase jail terms for child abusers would appear before parliament shortly.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie said organisers deliberately planned the protest to be as simple as possible, so that wherever people were they could take a moment to reflect on how they could make a difference to the child abuse problem.
"Let's face it — the three minutes was a symbolic gesture, but it was really designed to change the mindsets of people, from pointing the finger and 'Who's to blame?' to 'How can I be part of the solution?'"
Nia Killed by Whanau
Great. Four more bags of nameless filth for the taxpayer to support in prison. A three-year old girl is dead. And what do these sewer-rats get? A laughably short "sentence" of "rehabilitation" from which they will be out on bail before you can say "Jack Robinson". It's time for the government to set an example, and for justice to be done. As if the Coral Burrows case didn't sicken you enough, we now have four "whanau" or family in on a horrific and systematic torture and finally murder of a helpless, innocent little child who was in their care.
Bring back the death penalty. These lowlife deserve nothing better than life-time hard labour, or more ideally, 20,000 volts through their system and then bury them in cheap coffins made from pinus-radiata.
How many more little children need to be brutally murdered and molested?
How many more stupid, unworkable pieces of legislation that do more harm than good need to be pushed upon everyday New Zealanders?
How many more beurocrats such as Cindy Kiro and Sue Bradford do we need telling us that "smacking escelates into child abuse"?
The following excellent article on such a terrible event is from this website.
Bring back the death penalty. These lowlife deserve nothing better than life-time hard labour, or more ideally, 20,000 volts through their system and then bury them in cheap coffins made from pinus-radiata.
How many more little children need to be brutally murdered and molested?
How many more stupid, unworkable pieces of legislation that do more harm than good need to be pushed upon everyday New Zealanders?
How many more beurocrats such as Cindy Kiro and Sue Bradford do we need telling us that "smacking escelates into child abuse"?
The following excellent article on such a terrible event is from this website.
Michael Curtis (L) and William Curtis
Oriwa Kemp (L) and Michael Pearson
ALL MURDERERS-ALL DRUNKS-ALL DRUG TAKERS-CHILD KILLERS-ALL WHANAU.
Nia Glassie's step-grandfather allegedly wrapped a scarf twice around her neck, then lifted her off the ground and strangled her with it until she turned purple.
After 10 seconds, he is said to have thrown her to the ground and verbally abused her when she cried.
These were among new details of the abuse allegedly suffered by the 3-year-old revealed yesterday.
They surfaced at a bail hearing for three of the five people accused of abusing the toddler.
All three were denied bail amid a heavy police, media and family presence in the Rotorua District Court.
Judge Chris McGuire said part of the reason he refused bail was because the trio and the victim came from the same family, and there was a risk of interference with witnesses.
"For now, the victim herself, Nia Glassie, is silent forever from giving her own views. It does seem to me that child victims may on occasions like this deserve a voice beyond the immediate family."
Nia died in the Starship hospital last Friday after eight days in a coma with head and abdominal injuries. Her cousin, Michael Pearson, 19, and 17-year-old Oriwa Kemp, who is the partner of Nia's stepfather's brother, were first to apply for bail.It is alleged that they and Nia's stepfather, Wiremu Curtis, 17, and his brother, Michael Curtis, 21, assaulted Nia.
Judge McGuire said the four were allegedly responsible for "a series of events of cruelty and hurt to a very young child" which included Nia being "locked in a clothes dryer and the clothes dryer turned on".
He said two children were witnesses and had provided evidence to police but he suppressed their identity to protect their privacy. A neighbour had also seen Nia picked up by a leg and thrown at the clothesline by the group.
She was allegedly spun from the line by her ankle until she fell off and was also seen running around on the roof of the house while the adults looked up and laughed.
There was also an allegation she was left at her kohanga reo in a filthy state and smelling of cannabis. (WHY DIDNT THEY REPORT THIS FACT?) The judge remanded the two in custody until a pre-depositions hearing on September 27. Pearson consented but Kemp - who kept her face to the ground for most of the 90-minute hearing - did not and the judge ordered her to reappear on Tuesday. He also denied bail to William Curtis, 47, Nia's step-grandfather, who is charged with assaulting her and injuring her with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.Curtis' alleged offending relates to an earlier period and police say that, unlike the other four, he is not likely to face further charges.The allegations that he abused Nia were made by his daughter, who said he would walk up to Nia and push her on to the ground or into the wall, had slapped her face and threatened to stomp on her head.Gasps could be heard in court as Judge McGuire related the incident with the scarf, saying it had led to the grievous bodily harm charge. Curtis consented to be remanded in custody for a predepositions hearing on September 27.A bail hearing for Michael Curtis will be held next Wednesday. Wiremu Curtis is due in Auckland District Court on Monday.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Garth George: Weak, stupid responses to the evil of child abuse
5:00AM Thursday August 02, 2007
from www.nzherald.co.nz
Garth George
from www.nzherald.co.nz
Garth George
The merciless abuse of two Rotorua tots is not a scandal. That is far too mild a word to describe such atrocities.
Nor is it enough to call these a national disgrace or national shame. They are both, but the nearest anyone has come to an adequate description is Michael Laws who, writing on Sunday, described them as "evil".
He is right, but I'll go further: they are positively satanic, for only the Prince of Darkness could so corrupt a society that it could breed Homo sapiens who get sadistic pleasure in torturing and injuring their own young.
And take it from me, the Devil is just as alive and kicking today as he was in Old Testament times. He remains, after all, the prince of this world. What is a scandal are the nonsensical knee-jerk reactions of politicians and others and the ideas they come up with.
This has happened before several times, the last the furore that followed the deaths last year of the Kahui twins. But as Peter Dunne says, all that has been achieved is "a large amount of hand-wringing and navel gazing".
The stupidity of the Government's first initiative is almost incomprehensible. It proposes to have all women visiting public hospitals asked about family violence. What that hopes to achieve is beyond my grasp.
Acting Social Development Minister Steve Maharey says frontline health workers in hospitals will try to find out whether there is violence in a family and whether any kind of assistance can be given.
This is preposterous, and if those frontline health workers have a grain of sense they will not have a bar of it.
Otherwise, they'll wear it, for I can imagine the reaction of a number of my female friends if they were asked such a question when turning up at accident and emergency for treatment, for instance, of a cut finger.
And imagine what such questioning might do to a woman who has been admitted to hospital having been diagnosed with a dread disease and who is in a state of acute anxiety, fear or even shock?
In any case, the last thing the very women who are targeted by this absurd proposal are going to do is to admit to anything to someone they don't know and probably don't trust.
And rightly so. To whom do these inquisitive front-line health workers report if their suspicions are aroused? To some social worker, perhaps, who might misconstrue the patient's responses and try to interfere when no interference is necessary?
What about privacy concerns? Are communications between patients and medical professionals no longer privileged?
Meanwhile Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro throws up her hands in horror and rabbits on about the need for educational programmes. Which is all very well, except that the sort of mental retards who abuse and kill children are ineducable.
Then there's the Maori issue, for there are five times as many Maori children abused and killed each year than in any other ethnic group.
Maori Party leader Pita Sharples whines that he feels ashamed and guilty over these latest abominations but in the next breath insists - in spite of all the evidence - that child abuse among Maori is not a problem that can be reduced to ethnicity.
Wrong, Dr Sharples. If Maori are killing Maori children then it could well be an ethnic problem and it is time that he and the entire leadership of the Maori race took ownership of it.
Maori activists are always crying out to be allowed to find Maori answers to Maori problems. Well, here is one of the biggest problems facing Maori today and their leaders had better get off their butts and find some answers.
And I mean answers, because all we have seen up to now is the usual - trying to apply sticking-plaster solutions to symptoms instead of diagnosing and organising treatment for the causes. These are always much more difficult and expensive to treat but, that aside, the trouble is that most of those in political, social and ethnic leadership wouldn't recognise the root causes if they jumped up and bit them.
Things like the breakdown of families (whanau included), neighbourhoods and communities. Poverty and welfare dependency running from generation to generation. An exploitive low-wage economy. A nanny state that interferes with parenting. A disinclination to enforce the laws on school attendance. A drinking age that's too low and a drug supply that seems to grow exponentially. Continuous sex and violence on television and in movies. And a public morality that says anything goes, including open-slather abortion.
That's just some of them. And even if by some miracle our leaders did begin to understand that these sorts of things lie at the root of our national malaise, it would still take a least a generation to even begin to fix them. Then again, perhaps it's already too late.
Call for Kiro to step down
"Children's commissioner" Cindy Kiro uses child-abuse cases as fuel for her vision of socialization. "Clausen claims that theories of socialization are to be found in Plato, MontaigneRousseau and he identifies a dictionary entry from 1828 that defines 'socialize' as 'to render social, to make fit for living in society'"1. She tells of a constant stream of complaints from citizens saying that they are fed up with our shocking child-abuse statistics.
Instead of apologising to New Zealand, to every decent mum and dad and handing in her resignation after her doing such a shoddy job, she turns round and has the audacity to say "It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a difference". However, this is not the point that Kiwis are trying to get across to their anti-democratic government which doesn't listen to them. Stifled by layer upon layer of bureaucracy, we are kicked in the teeth and told that "With more investment in programmes and systems..." we can combat child-abuse.
Kiro states: "My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have received so that we can establish the best use of them." Why can't she leave us alone? New Zealanders didn't ask for imported Swedish laws, reeking of communism to further screw up our Country.
Sue Bradford states "Consideration should also be given to Childrens Commissioner Cindy Kiro's proposition that all children be tracked from birth, to ensure at least one external person or group has an eye on the child's welfare. The answer doesn't lie in making our welfare system even more repressive - especially when a Health Ministry survey released yesterday shows half of teenagers are 'victims of violence'," Ms Bradford says. 2.
These are dangerous, dangerous ideas and plans that these extremist, communistic Beaurocrats are working on. New Zealanders would do well to stay informed as we approach local body elections and then the general election.
1. from Wikipedia.org
2. from www.scoop.co.nz
Below is the article.
---------------------------------------------
New Zealand reaches child abuse tipping point
Thursday, 2 August 2007, 11:24 am
Press Release: Office of the Children's Commissioner
Children's Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, believes that New Zealand has
reached a tipping point and we will no longer tolerate the abuse of our
most vulnerable citizens - our children.
"This week, my Office has been inundated by contact from people of all
walks of life who have enough of hearing about yet an other abused
child. These people have something very important in common - they all
want to do something to help. They may have ideas on what needs to be
done. They may want to donate their time or their money. They may be
well-known New Zealanders who want to use their profile to raise
awareness of the issues and what can be done," says Dr Kiro."
"My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have
received so that we can establish the best use of them."
"It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a
difference.
I believe that we are moving from a situation of saying that 'someone
else should do something about this' to one of 'I want to do something
about this'."
"There is a place for individuals, families, communities, government and
society to all do something about this issue."
"We need investment in education and better health outcomes for children
and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with
government to deliver services that support children and families."
"I believe that the establishment of an plan for every child through an
integrated framework for children and their families that would provide
a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework
would bring a systematic child-focused approach to monitoring the
development of every child and young person in New Zealand through
co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting
families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full
potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child:
their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological
development."
"With more investment in programmes and systems and the goodwill and
actions of ordinary New Zealanders, I believe we can combat child abuse
and improve the lives of our children," says Dr Kiro.
Instead of apologising to New Zealand, to every decent mum and dad and handing in her resignation after her doing such a shoddy job, she turns round and has the audacity to say "It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a difference". However, this is not the point that Kiwis are trying to get across to their anti-democratic government which doesn't listen to them. Stifled by layer upon layer of bureaucracy, we are kicked in the teeth and told that "With more investment in programmes and systems..." we can combat child-abuse.
Kiro states: "My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have received so that we can establish the best use of them." Why can't she leave us alone? New Zealanders didn't ask for imported Swedish laws, reeking of communism to further screw up our Country.
Sue Bradford states "Consideration should also be given to Childrens Commissioner Cindy Kiro's proposition that all children be tracked from birth, to ensure at least one external person or group has an eye on the child's welfare. The answer doesn't lie in making our welfare system even more repressive - especially when a Health Ministry survey released yesterday shows half of teenagers are 'victims of violence'," Ms Bradford says. 2.
These are dangerous, dangerous ideas and plans that these extremist, communistic Beaurocrats are working on. New Zealanders would do well to stay informed as we approach local body elections and then the general election.
1. from Wikipedia.org
2. from www.scoop.co.nz
Below is the article.
---------------------------------------------
New Zealand reaches child abuse tipping point
Thursday, 2 August 2007, 11:24 am
Press Release: Office of the Children's Commissioner
Children's Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro, believes that New Zealand has
reached a tipping point and we will no longer tolerate the abuse of our
most vulnerable citizens - our children.
"This week, my Office has been inundated by contact from people of all
walks of life who have enough of hearing about yet an other abused
child. These people have something very important in common - they all
want to do something to help. They may have ideas on what needs to be
done. They may want to donate their time or their money. They may be
well-known New Zealanders who want to use their profile to raise
awareness of the issues and what can be done," says Dr Kiro."
"My Office is currenting working through the many offers we have
received so that we can establish the best use of them."
"It is very heartening to see so many people wanting to make a
difference.
I believe that we are moving from a situation of saying that 'someone
else should do something about this' to one of 'I want to do something
about this'."
"There is a place for individuals, families, communities, government and
society to all do something about this issue."
"We need investment in education and better health outcomes for children
and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with
government to deliver services that support children and families."
"I believe that the establishment of an plan for every child through an
integrated framework for children and their families that would provide
a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework
would bring a systematic child-focused approach to monitoring the
development of every child and young person in New Zealand through
co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting
families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full
potential. The assessments would take into account the whole child:
their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological
development."
"With more investment in programmes and systems and the goodwill and
actions of ordinary New Zealanders, I believe we can combat child abuse
and improve the lives of our children," says Dr Kiro.
Direct Democracy Party: "The Village" killed this child
Direct Democracy Press Release | 4 August 07
this article from www.ddp.co.nz
this article from www.ddp.co.nz
"It is time for the media, social service agencies, and the community at large to stop buying into the lie of "it takes a village to raise a child" says the Deputy Leader of the Direct Democracy Party (www.ddp.co.nz), Steve Taylor.
"It was this utopian "village" that was responsible for killing Nia Glassie, just as it was this same utopian village that has resulted in the deaths of so many other children in New Zealand. It does not take a village to raise a child: it takes two loving and committed parents within the empirically safest family unit available – the nuclear family" says Mr Taylor.
"Whenever there is a crisis such as the Nia Glassie case, the media perform the same toxic dance with the devil: they go to the very people who have no answers or solutions to offer: people like the Children's Commissioner; University academics; CYF; Women's Refuge; or a plethora of state funded agencies and spokespeople. The media then report untested ideological claptrap from these same people as if the content was on a par with the Ten Commandments".
"When a society, (aided and abetted by Government) intentionally and consistently undermines natural law, then the consequences for doing so are plain for all to see".
"Parents have been marginalised and dismissed by minority-motivated legislative intent, undermining their natural authority in the home; all family forms are considered of equal value in terms of bringing up children, when the science is unequivocal that this is not the case; placing abused children within families that have fostered and thus sanction such abuse is an accepted "best practice" of Child, Youth, and Family; actively removing fathers from the lives of their children is championed in Law and often facilitated by the Family Court; a morally relative-based fear of placing any "stigma" or "judgement" on those who rightly deserve to be both stigmatised and judged has resulted in any societal behaviour essentially being deemed "contextual", as opposed to "bad and wrong" behaviour being appropriately labelled "bad and wrong".
"This Alice-in-Wonderland perspective that seems to have integrated itself into the national psyche needs an antidote – as a start society and its leaders as a whole needs to start siding with reality, as opposed to ideological fantasy, when looking to address issues such as child abuse and family breakdown".
"The "takes a village" concept needs to be consigned to the scrapheap of failed, misguided, and dangerous interventions - the "takes a village" concept never has worked, and never will work. Rather, empowering individual families to get their own house in order is the answer to the problem - absent of invasive and intrusive state intervention deceptively packaged as a "village" says Mr Taylor.Anti-Smacking Law Diverting Police Resources From
The anti-smacking law is wasting valuable police time and resources when police should be focusing their energies on actual child abuse like the two recent Rotorua cases.
A Howick-Otara police family violence coordinator has highlighted a case of an 11-year-old calling 111 and complaining to the police after being corrected by his parents. The police say he had learnt about the law at school and was misinformed.
"The anti-smacking bill has placed healthy and reasonable discipline into abuse categories and police are now wasting time having to investigate complaints of what is simply appropriate and reasonable parental correction," says Family First National Director Bob McCoskrie.
"The police should be focusing their energy on investigating drug and alcohol offences, domestic violence, violent crimes and actual child abuse, rather than being distracted by complaints from children who don't like correction and boundaries from their parents."
Similar cases have surfaced in Sweden including a recent case of a 6-year-old ringing the police because she was angry at her mother for not being given a handbag like her mother's. Police time was wasted investigating the malicious claim.
"Although we want children to speak up when there is violence in their homes, the anti-smacking law has resulted in appropriate parental correction being interpreted as 'parent assault'and having to be investigated. Not only are parents confused by the law, but children are too," says Mr McCoskrie.
"Good parents are being targeted by this flawed law, diverting our attention from the at-risk families we should be working with."
Marc My Words: Child Abuse Part Of Wider Problem
In the wrong hands an article on child abuse could be rolled up as a weapon
If there was a standard theme throughout the last week or so, it was the issue of child abuse. Again. Yes, we are horrified by the inhumanity exposed within a family who saw fit to throw blocks of wood at three-year-old Nia Glassie in a sand-pit; strung up like a rag-doll on the clothes line; and tossed into a tumble dryer like a woolen sock. This is our outrage du jour. We've had them before and, despite the ridiculous optimism of Sue Bradford's determinedly anti-family 'Anti-Smacking legislation' to "send a message"; it has conclusively proved its lack of worth. Abusive parents over-whelmingly ignored both her "message" and the subsequent law change. Nia's abuser's actions carried on unperturbed and brought to a halt by the embarrassment of being caught...
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Letters to the Editor: The silence is deafening
Apologise, Bradford
The silence from member of Parliament Sue Bradford over the abuse of the three-year-old child in Rotorua is deafening. We surrendered the right to discipline our children by the application of timely force to the posterior of our loved ones. We also granted the Government the right to enter our homes and to discipline adults who breached this non-violent approach to discipline. We wre told that it would prevent child abuse. I take it that, by way of apology, Bradford will explain how her amendment failed this child, and that as a mark of her acknowledgement she will step down as an MP.
I could also wake from my dream.
Dennis Mardle
---------------------------------
Yes, Dennis, very well put. However I would not say that "we surrendered the right to discipline our children". The fact of the matter is that the Government, Parliament in-fact rode rough-shod over 83% of decent, orderly, law-abiding citizens, pushing it's ugly barrow that is social-engineering.
---------------------------------
Where's the outrage?
The Prime Minister's silence is deafening. Where is the outrage? We have a Prime Minister who publicly declares her outrage at an ill woman's demise because the power was turned off. We have our Prime Minister attending this unfortunate woman's funeral. We have people marching on the street with placards against a power company. We have a little girl brutally and systematically tortured - where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We have monsters put away for a minimum four years parole for the torture and murder of a boy. Where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We should all be marching on the streets for that over-used phrase, tougher sentencing. Send the message to our judges:
we will not put up with this.
Catherine Mulder
These two comments taken from The Press 31 July 07, Letters to the Editor.
The silence from member of Parliament Sue Bradford over the abuse of the three-year-old child in Rotorua is deafening. We surrendered the right to discipline our children by the application of timely force to the posterior of our loved ones. We also granted the Government the right to enter our homes and to discipline adults who breached this non-violent approach to discipline. We wre told that it would prevent child abuse. I take it that, by way of apology, Bradford will explain how her amendment failed this child, and that as a mark of her acknowledgement she will step down as an MP.
I could also wake from my dream.
Dennis Mardle
---------------------------------
Yes, Dennis, very well put. However I would not say that "we surrendered the right to discipline our children". The fact of the matter is that the Government, Parliament in-fact rode rough-shod over 83% of decent, orderly, law-abiding citizens, pushing it's ugly barrow that is social-engineering.
---------------------------------
Where's the outrage?
The Prime Minister's silence is deafening. Where is the outrage? We have a Prime Minister who publicly declares her outrage at an ill woman's demise because the power was turned off. We have our Prime Minister attending this unfortunate woman's funeral. We have people marching on the street with placards against a power company. We have a little girl brutally and systematically tortured - where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We have monsters put away for a minimum four years parole for the torture and murder of a boy. Where is the Prime Minister's outrage? We should all be marching on the streets for that over-used phrase, tougher sentencing. Send the message to our judges:
we will not put up with this.
Catherine Mulder
These two comments taken from The Press 31 July 07, Letters to the Editor.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse
Media Release - Family First NZ | 27 July 2007
Family First NZ is joining with For the Sake of our Children Trust in calling for an official Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ.
The call comes after the horrific case of a Rotorua child fighting for her life as a result of abuse. Her step-father and other household members have been charged with assault.
"The ban on smacking was simply an admission by politicians that they could not and would not tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by recent CYFS and UNICEF reports," says Bob McCoskrie of Family First.
"The 80% plus of NZ'ers who opposed Bradford's bill are not people who were demanding the right to "thrash and beat" children as suggested by Helen Clark. They were simply kiwis who were exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed child welfare groups were more interested in targeting good parents and light smacking than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty, and weak family ties."
"The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions."
"An Otara couple who could be out of prison in only four years for the recent horrific abuse of their three year old shows that we simply aren't placing enough emphasis and resources on sending a clear message to child abusers that their actions are unacceptable. These type of people probably think section 59 is the main road into Wellington."
Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:
June 2007
* Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries
* 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative
* 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.
* Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.
July 2007
* Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months
* Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P
* 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse allegedly by stepfather and extended family
"This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse."
"An independent Inquiry would be an important first step," says Mr McCoskrieThursday, July 26, 2007
The auction for the Timaru Lady cane
--------------------------------------
This article from www.stuff.co.nz
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 26 July 2007
The MP who forced a rewrite of laws governing smacking described the Trade Me sale as "ugly", particularly because someone was seeking to gain from a child's pain.
The implement, once wielded by a Timaru mother, is being marketed as "the cane that changed the law".
The woman, who has name suppression and is believed to be the seller, was acquitted in 2005 of assaulting her 13-year-old son with a riding crop and a bamboo cane.
What became known as "the Timaru horsewhip case" proved a rallying point for those on either side of Ms Bradford's controversial anti-smacking law.
"It's a real tragedy that something that's been used to beat a child is being glorified and sold for profit," she said yesterday.
"It's a real indictment on the person selling it. Even though a court let them off, it was that type of case that lay behind a lot of my motivation for the bill."
By 6pm yesterday, the auction had attracted only three bids.
The top bid of $5 was lodged by Andrew Moore, a self-described "Christiana/student/entrepreneur" from Christchurch and a contributor to pro-smacking site.
The tongue-in-cheek blurb for the auction said the cane would suit a range of purposes.
"It could become a cop and go on a stake out!! ... It could become an Silver Fern so they can continue to cane the Aussies ... It could join the American Army ... I hear they're looking for weapons of m'ass destruction!"
The cane was listed under the user name "come-a-cropper", from Timaru.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie said he understood it was being sold by the mother.
"I'm not sure if she's making a political point or fundraising for legal costs."
The woman and her husband are facing another trial for alleged assault of another son.
In April, the woman displayed the cane and her riding crop in a video posted on YouTube.com.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
"Public Health Association" spin-doctored "research"
The "Public Health Association", (whoever they are), have released a poorly construed piece of misinformation. They title their "media release" Link Between View of Children, Physical Punishment. They've based this statement on what they refer to as "research". This "research" was the analysis of about 170 submissions to the select committee on the issue of the repeal of Section 59. The sub-title they have given the "media release" is Study Indicates Link Between View of Children as 'Developing Adults' and Support for Physical Punishment . In the article they state: ...submitters who viewed children as what have elsewhere been called "human becomings". Why can't they just tell us what the submitters actually viewed the children as, instead of this warped propaganda?
In the sub-title of the article, they equate 'Developing Adults' with 'Human Becomings' however the two terms have different meanings. While the first term appears to be more reasonable, the second term indicates a belief that children are not entirely human.
Then, based on 170 (or fewer) submissions, (conceivably specially selected from the total pool of 1700 submissions), the "Public Health Association" tells the media: "The research indicates there may be a need to look at people's most deep-seated beliefs about children and childhood, before their beliefs about physical punishment and discipline can be addressed".
"We found a link...", "There was a link...". What a load of rubbish. You don't "find links" between statistics based on just a handful of submissions. And then to have the effrontery to publish their results as "research", in a media release, hah, it blows your mind.
Referring to the above statement, "Ms" Russel says: "One place where this could be explored is in parenting classes. Discussions about how parents view children and childhood would be a good place to start us thinking about how we go about parenting them."
OH YEAH, that's what we want. We want a bunch of socialistic, beurocratic, (childless) yuppies shoving copious numbers of their "the experts say..." quotes down our throats.
Below, for your entertainment and/or information, I have reproduced the "media release", in full.
---------------------------
Link Between View of Children, Physical Punishment Thursday, 5 July 2007, 3:24 pm
Press Release: Public Health Association n MEDIA RELEASE
Study Indicates Link Between View of Children as 'Developing Adults' and Support for Physical Punishment
Embargoed to 3.15pm, Thurs 5 July
A Victoria University study has concluded that people who view children primarily as developing humans are more likely to support the use of physical punishment to discipline them.
Researcher Marie Russell told the Public Health Association conference at Auckland University today that an analysis of some of the submissions to the select committee on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act indicated submitters who viewed children as what have elsewhere been called "human becomings" tended to support the retention of section 59.
"Those who saw children as human beings in their own right tended to support the section's repeal", Ms Russell told the public health workers.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act formerly allowed people charged with assault of their children a defence of using reasonable force for correction. Its repeal passed in May and came into force on June 22.
"We analysed about 10 percent of the 1700 submissions to the select committee. We found a link between views of children as 'developing adults', and support for physical discipline. There was also a link between a view of children primarily as human beings and support for the repeal of section 59".
"The research indicates there may be a need to look at people's most deep-seated beliefs about children and childhood, before their beliefs about physical punishment and discipline can be addressed".
"One place where this could be explored is in parenting classes. Discussions about how parents view children and childhood would be a good place to start us thinking about how we go about parenting them." Ms Russell said.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Labour MP corrects naughty child with a smack in shopping mall
MEDIA RELEASE
30 June 2007
Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.
Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.
"We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances."
"It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances."
"However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated."
"The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF's for possible investigation and intervention."
"That's how farcical this law is," says Mr McCoskrie. "Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children's Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe's actions totally unacceptable."
But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.
ROTFLMHO.
30 June 2007
Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.
Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.
"We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances."
"It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances."
"However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated."
"The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF's for possible investigation and intervention."
"That's how farcical this law is," says Mr McCoskrie. "Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children's Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe's actions totally unacceptable."
But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.
ROTFLMHO.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Teachers may be prosecuted for giving lines under new law
an Advisory Notice to Schools - 22 June 2007
by Michael Drake, director of Wycliffe Christian Schools
Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.
From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.
If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.
There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting "in the place of parents". The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.
A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.
Schools need to note that "force" is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.
The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).
State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.
Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the "general law" of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.
Private Schools' powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.
We strongly advise schools to:
1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children
We also recommend that as part of schools' citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.
While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.
In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.
That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the "appropriate" laws, "inappropriate" behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.
But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.
Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.
Michael L Drake
by Michael Drake, director of Wycliffe Christian Schools
Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.
From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.
If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.
There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting "in the place of parents". The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.
A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.
Schools need to note that "force" is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.
The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).
State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.
Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the "general law" of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.
Private Schools' powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.
We strongly advise schools to:
1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children
We also recommend that as part of schools' citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.
While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.
In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.
That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the "appropriate" laws, "inappropriate" behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.
But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.
Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.
Michael L Drake
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Everyone's signing.
PRESS RELEASE: Politik NZ - 23 June 07
www.politik.co.nz
"It blows your mind", says Andy Moore, founder of Politik NZ. "The average, decent looking Kiwi out there on the street is only to happy to put their name on the fast growing list of Kiwis unhappy with the new anti-smacking law."
Mr. Moore is in a good position to comment on this issue, having manned trestle tables with other concerned parents on several occasions.
"I have been staggered at the canyon of difference between the comments and actions of our politicians and the response of your everyday Kiwi." He says. "The high percentage of well-dressed, upper middle class mums and dads who are keen to sign their names to the petition is so different from the story that the media is presenting us with."
"The number of young people who want to sign is quite telling", He says. "Young people only just turned eighteen; young couples, girlfriend and boyfriend, young mums; the vast majority of them are only to happy to put pen to paper".
Mr. Moore says that he has had to turn away a number of children who are also keen to see democracy prevail. "A bit of a smack is ok - but you don't bash them up", said one fifteen-year old.
"The children talk more sense than the politicians"
"Tourists walk up to the table and say 'I would sign, but I'm not from your country - keep up the good work' - a group of high-school boys walk past, and a couple of them yell out 'good on ya!'"
"The people of New Zealand are not fooled - much less our younger generation", Mr. Moore said.
www.politik.co.nz
"It blows your mind", says Andy Moore, founder of Politik NZ. "The average, decent looking Kiwi out there on the street is only to happy to put their name on the fast growing list of Kiwis unhappy with the new anti-smacking law."
Mr. Moore is in a good position to comment on this issue, having manned trestle tables with other concerned parents on several occasions.
"I have been staggered at the canyon of difference between the comments and actions of our politicians and the response of your everyday Kiwi." He says. "The high percentage of well-dressed, upper middle class mums and dads who are keen to sign their names to the petition is so different from the story that the media is presenting us with."
"The number of young people who want to sign is quite telling", He says. "Young people only just turned eighteen; young couples, girlfriend and boyfriend, young mums; the vast majority of them are only to happy to put pen to paper".
Mr. Moore says that he has had to turn away a number of children who are also keen to see democracy prevail. "A bit of a smack is ok - but you don't bash them up", said one fifteen-year old.
"The children talk more sense than the politicians"
"Tourists walk up to the table and say 'I would sign, but I'm not from your country - keep up the good work' - a group of high-school boys walk past, and a couple of them yell out 'good on ya!'"
"The people of New Zealand are not fooled - much less our younger generation", Mr. Moore said.
Father hits out at 'vague' new smacking guidelines
Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was "totally ridiculous" that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.
"How can they prove it?" he said. "They're not there at the time - they didn't see what went on . . . unless there is bruising - but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse."
Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used "minor, trivial or inconsequential" force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.
The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.
It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute "inconsequential" smacking.
Though that is recognised in the guidelines, "inconsequential" is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.
The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is "repetitive and frequent" and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.
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.
Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police "some context".
Friday, June 22, 2007
Maxim: "Police guidelines a leap in the dark"
This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is 'inconsequential' the police have discretion whether to prosecute.
The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even 'inconsequential' reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.
The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people's attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.
This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders' perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.
Smacking doesn't make me a bad mum - Rotorua parent
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."
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."
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)