Hey Aunty Helen, lets sing

By the way I did not write this, but I have forgotten where I found it. If you find the link, please post a comment.

_____________________________________

We're the sheeple of New Zealand
Once were proud and free
But the socialists who rule us
Want to pass the EFB
All animals are equal
Old Orwell once told me
Except for Aunty Helen
And the Labour Partee

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Lets get shot of the lot
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Old Michaels got our money
He'll never give it back
"I can spend your cash more wisely"
He would swear that on the rack
Health and education are nothing but a joke
And the best that Trev the duck can do
Is give big Tau a poke

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Lets chop out all the rot
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Our brightest are all leaving
As our business's close down
Despite her lies we realise
Dear leader is a clown
She'd like another term
But that we could not stand
Lets vote her out without a doubt
And regain our free land

Chorus

Lets do away with Labour
Don't put up with their rort
Lets do away with Labour
It's the only chance we've got

Sue, What is the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act about?

After writing to all of the MP's regarding the wellington lady who had three police come around to her house after a neighbour called the cops because she smacked one of her children, I finally received a reply from Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford says, "all she needs to do to avoid this eventuality [being arrested] is stop smacking her children."

Once again we see that Sue Bradford's original intention was to criminalize good parents who smack their children occasionally for correction. It hasn't and won't do anything to prevent child abuse.

Gay Minister sets sights on sunday schools, creches

From www.newstalkzb.co.nz - 9/11/2007

Sunday schools seem set for the chopping block. Education Minister Chris Carter has confirmed that a gathering of three children under adult supervision constitutes an early childhood education unit, so must be fully licensed. That would see Sunday schools follow gym creches into oblivion.

National Party Associate Education spokeswoman Paula Bennett says that is silly, as often parents are in the same building or just next door. She says parents know what is best for their children.

Paula Bennett says Sunday schools are perfectly safe environments, where parents know exactly what their children are doing.

ENDS

First this Government criminalises smacking and now they want to keep tabs on what is taught in Sunday Schools. What next ??

A question

Why is it ok for parents to use force for the purpose of:

• preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour
• performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting

But it's not ok to use force for the purpose of correction?

All I want to know is...  who says?

Who says that a smack (reasonable force) is now officially and legally classed as child abuse, when using force (not specified that it must be reasonable) for any of the other four categories is accepted?

Who are these over-paid beurocrats to tell us decent, everyday Kiwi mums and dads that we are criminals?

They told us: "Smacking's been illegal for 100 years" (no it hasn't) and... "We just wanted to remove the legal defense for parents to beat and abuse their children" .  Rubbish, such cases do not exist.

They had no leg to stand on, the only way they managed to pass Bradford's confused and poorly worded bill into law was by ignoring you, by ignoring the people of New Zealand.  Polls indicated that 83% of Kiwis were opposed to repeal.  The Letters to the Editor sections were overloaded with annoyed parents and concerned citizens.  They ignored you New Zealand, National sold out and joined forces with Labour to pass the law which now criminalises 78% of good Kiwi parents (as an independent poll taken after the law was passed indicates).

"It's not an anti-smacking bill", they said.  Check out the following link:  Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill

What are we going to do?  Democracy.  Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz where you can find out more information on The Great New Zealand Table Challenge and the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

The Section 59 blog: keeping you informed

Search for Section 59 on Yahoo, and what do you get?

Section59.blogspot.com - ranked #5 out of 114,000,000 results.

click the image to enlarge...

Letter to MPs: "this law is not working"

This is the email that a mate sent to all MP's who voted for the anti smacking law.

 

Recently a Wellington resident had the police come around to her property to 'investigate' a suspected case of 'child abuse'. This parent who occasionally uses a smack for the purpose of correction is now a criminal. When the law was passed we were told that a light smack was not going to be criminalized. This law was and is a Anti smacking law. It has nothing to do with child abuse. The law was put there so that the Government could have control of what goes on in the home. The Government does not trust parents to make the right decisions for their children. What the police said to her when they arrived was that if they had to come around again then she would be arrested. If you are arrested then you are suspect and likely to be charged. This makes you are a criminal or at least gives you the feeling of being a criminal. Even though the police let her off this time she was given a warning.

 

I don't know any good parent who wants the police to come around to their property to 'investigate'.

 

Would you like the police to come around and 'investigate' what you are doing on your property?

 

Think about the many thousands of good parents who now live in fear of the police,, just because they use a smack for correction.

 

This law is not working.

 

If it's broken, FIX IT.

Bradford Attacking the Friends of Section 59 Repeal

Scrubone over at halfdone.wordpress.com writes...

In my experience there are few things quite so shocking as going out of your way to do something good, spending time and effort to do the right thing, then turning around and then suddenly finding yourself deep in trouble because of it.

This comes pretty close to that.

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

“I don’t want to feel like a child abuser, and I don’t want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son,” she said. “It’s brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress.”

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, “not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level”.

Here’s a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

• “My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property.”

Click here to read the rest of this well-researched article.

Normal Kiwi family traumatised: CYFS acts on new Section59

Dave at big-news.blogspot.com has managed to get a copy of the letter that the Wellington mother sent to Family First regarding CYFS and Police acting on the new Section59 and traumatising her family. She said her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand. So she reported it to the Family First lobby who told the media. Below are a few highly important excerpts. Do make sure that you visit Big-news.blogspot.com to read the whole letter, as it is merely a taste of what is to come.

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

[first incident]
"...The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning. The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

...Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate. X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up – X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn't a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry.The teacher seemed to ask questions about X's behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was - only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no...."

[second incident]
"...Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T's and dot their I's.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn't smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child. The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left...

...An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children's work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)...

...We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority."

update: Check out ZenTiger's post over at nzconservative.blogspot.com regarding this story.

School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

By RUTH LAUGESEN - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

"I don't want to feel like a child abuser, and I don't want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son," she said. "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress."

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

In the first incident, she came home one day in the July school holidays to find a card left by Child, Youth and Family asking her to contact a care and protection officer.

The officer told her the agency had received a complaint from the school after her son had hit another child with a ball. When asked why, the boy told the teacher he had been smacked that morning.

The mother of four said she had smacked him on the hand after he had "thrown a wobbly" instead of getting ready for school. The smack had left no mark.

She said hers was "just an average Kiwi family". Both parents worked, did not smoke or drink or "have any addictions". They smacked rarely, preferring to use time out. She said the care and protection officer had decided not to take the matter any further.

The school was unrepentant when her husband questioned its handling of the matter.

In the second incident, in September, three police officers arrived at her house after she smacked her child outside, and a neighbour complained. The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further.

A friend who was at the house at the time, Gabrielle Allen, said the arrival of police was astonishing and intimidating.

"My friend is loud, there's a lot of volume. She's just excitable. I think she's a great mum, and she really loves her children. She's consistent but she's not over the top with discipline at all."

The mother then contacted Family First, a lobby group that vociferously opposed smacking law changes passed in June. The organisation put her in touch with the Sunday Star-Times.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, "not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level".

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskrie said parents now feared the law, and Child, Youth and Family.

A spokeswoman for Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said the minister did not believe the CYFs intervention was a result of the June law change, but reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse.

The Education Ministry said schools had not been given any fresh instructions about reporting smacking since the legislation came in.

ENDS - [emphasies my own]

Unprecedented Socialism from Children's Commissioner

Below are some excerpts from Cindy Kiro's Ten Year Vision for New Zealand, with comments.
Click here to read Cindy Kiro's "Ten Year Vision"

...Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki provides a systematic approach to monitoring development of every child and young person in New Zealand, and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
[It is the Government's job to individually monitor every single child from birth til end of high-school]

Planned assessment at key life stages, including early childhood, primary and secondary school entry, and moving to tertiary education or employment and training opportunities, is a key component of the framework.
[At least four compulsory Government assessments of your child - quite possibly many more]

The assessment will take into account the whole child; their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development. Within these domains different factors will be more important depending on the age of the child.
[The Government is responsible for a child's physical, social, educational, emotional and psychological development.  Oh, I thought that was the parent's job.]

In the early years there is would be a focus on attachment between infant and caregivers, [Yes - that's right, we don't say "parents" now] and on physical growth and development. School engagement is important [Why?] between age five and nine, and at entry to secondary school a review of general health , personal identity and social wellbeing [This will almost certainly include assessment of "sexual orientation" and further aspects of the child's life which are not at all in the Government's jurisdiction] are key issues. The final assessment would focus on preparedness for transition from compulsory education [Only slaves are forcibly educated by their government] to further education, training or employment...

...Where statutory interventions or specialist intervention are required the integrated service delivery will continue, co-ordinated by a practitioner with statutory or professional responsibility to take the lead professional role...
[Parents are not qualified to look after their own children.  Professionals (Agents of the State) must investigate every single child to find out if they meet their criteria]

...For the framework to function effectively, those involved with a child or family will need to have access to information that helps them to make better decisions. A sound information base is essential if we are going to make sure that every child is safe and protected, enjoys the resources to take an active role in society, and understands and enjoys their human rights...
[This means bigger, more comprehensive databases of every single child in the country - from their whole life, not just while they are children]

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

This "Ten Year Vision" is an as yet unprecedented demonstration of communism in New Zealand.  The position of "Children's Commissioner" is a very new one, and set up by our current Labour Government.  With the passing of the anti-parental-authority law, Cindy Kiro has the stepping-stool she needs to reach further into families New Zealand wide. 

As they attempt to further prise apart parents and children, the State is attempting to indoctrinate children with the idea that "you have a chioce", "we're you're friends" - "your parents aren't necessarily the best ones to be looking after you".  "You're 13? no, we won't tell your parents if you go ahead with the abortion", "You're 8 years old, you're old enough to decide for yourself what gender-orientation you wish to associate yourself with".

Watch out Mum's and Dad's of New Zealand, there is a lot of bad stuff coming, just around the corner.  Don't sit back and say nothing.

" All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke/

Mallard Voted For Anti-Smacking - Should Resign

Press Release: Family First | Thursday, 25 October 2007

Family First is calling on Labour MP Trevor Mallard to resign as a result of assaulting another MP.

"Not only has he set an atrocious example to our young people, but in May he voted for Sue Bradford's bill to ban reasonable parental correction," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"Mr Mallard has seen fit to criminalise good parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction, yet has assaulted another MP. No reasonable force. Not for the purpose of correction. Simply a lack of control and discipline."

"Mr Mallard can suggest that there were extenuating circumstances, but this same defence is not available to parents. Police discretion should not be available in an extreme case like this," says Mr McCoskrie. "There was absolutely nothing reasonable in what he did."

In the interests of maintaining the integrity and standard of political leadership, Mr Mallard should accept the standards imposed on all other New Zealand's and resign.

Misbehaving Teens need better Discipline

Misbehaving Teens need better Discipline Retiring Cop Says
from www.stuff.co.nz | Monday, 8 October 2007


retiring Havelock policeman, Senior Constable Graeme Barsanti, says youths are out of control.

Police are powerless to make youths accountable for their actions, says a retiring officer.

Senior Constable Graeme Barsanti, of Havelock, will end 39 years in the police on October 19.

He said more respect and discipline were needed.

Barsanti told of seeing two boys, 14 and 11, on skateboards who nearly hit a woman on the main street of Havelock. He told them to take more care and to be more respectful of older people.

"Their words to me are unprintable and because of their age I could do nothing," Barsanti said.

Two days later, the boys yelled foul language across the road to him and members of the public heard, he said.

"When I approached them and their parents, they used the same foul language to their parents and said, `You can't do anything to me'," Barsanti said.

"To me, the parents have a right to deal with their kids and I should have a right to hold them responsible for their actions."

Although he could take young offenders' names and refer them to Youth Aid for a family group conference, bureaucracy had gone wrong, he said. "There was nothing I could do and the parents were scared to discipline their children because they could be done for assault," he said.

"In the old days I have taken kids behind the building and given them a whack up the backside, taken them home to their parents, and the parents have asked me to whack them instead of the parents (disciplining them)."

Years ago, when working in Opunake in Taranaki, he would get young offenders to polish the fire engine in the main street.

Parents supported that because it meant they were not paying a fine, and the youngsters were being held accountable for their actions, he said.

These days, very few things were done as a family, said Barsanti.

"You don't see families going away together," he said.

"Kids aged 14 and 15 are going off and doing their own things. You've got to bring back respect, loyalty and some discipline."

Barsanti, who will turn 60 two days after his retirement, said he loved the job but had decided it was time to finish.

He has been on the Marlborough District Council since 1989 and is standing for re-election.

He is also standing for election for the first time to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board.

Smacking Law Affecting Good Families

from www.familyfirst.org.nz

Family First is starting to be contacted by families who are being affected by Sue Bradford's anti-smacking law. These cases are heartbreaking and are proving that the law is ineffective, having no effect on rates of child abuse or child abuse deaths, and is penalising good parents.

IF YOU HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE NEW ANTI-SMACKING LAWS (or you know of other families who have), PLEASE CONTACT US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE   bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Family First will be releasing to the media examples of good parents being targeted by CYF, schools and police.  Please contact us in the strictest confidence.

Please also join us in the " Great NZ Table Challenge " as we seek to gain the remaining 90,000 signatures required for a National Referendum on Child Abuse and Parental Correction.

Family First NZ is joining with a new group Unity for Liberty and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to 'take up arms' - that means pens, tables and petition forms!
When : The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better)
Where : The length and breadth of New Zealand
Why : To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum (already 210,000 collected)
How :  By being available in your own communities for NZ'ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field - mid-week touch - flower shows - Expos - wherever there's a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)

CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS  LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED!

Section 59 poem

by my sister over at most-tranquil.blogspot.com

The sky is blue, the sun is hot,
Two redheads wait in a shady spot,
In front of them a table stands,
A trusty, stable Bunnings brand.

To a pole and a fence signs are taped,
The content of which make people gape,
'What's this about?' a person asks,
'A stupid legislation has just been passed.'

'Under this law, if you smack your child,
(They don't care if his behavior's wild),
Into your house civil servants will come,
Beating upon their proverbial drum.

'“So you smack your child,' is what they'll say,
We're sorry, we must take your child away,
Because, (and we're certain that you'll agree)
For your child, State care is a necessity.”

And that's exactly what they'll do,
Your child will enter a State run zoo,
If you dare to use your parental right,
Your child will be in a miserable plight.

So help us today, and sign the petition,
Make an end to Sue Bradford's ambition,
If you don't do it now it might be too late,
Please save our kids from a horrible fate.

Violence rocks "anti-smacking" Sweden

Ruby Harold Claesson reports from Sweden.

I have some devastating news from Sweden, but I haven't had the time to write an article as yet. You see, violence among juveniles - even those belonging to the upper middle class - is at its peek. On October 6 inst. a father shot and killed a 15-yr old and seriously wounded a 16 yr old. The gang of mopedist (motor driven cycle) youngsters had terrorised the man's family for more than two years, their reports to the police were ignored etc. That night the youngsters entered the family's home, threatening then with sticks and other arms and the man acted in self-defence.

Same night October 6, a 16-yr old in Stockholm was clubbed and kicked to death by youngsters of the same age.

June 19, 2007, two 15 yr olds and a 16 yr old torture a handicapped man to death.

The list can be made much longer.

"We are now beginning to see the results of the general lack of standards that the social-democrats made their political agenda during the 1960's and 70's. It was about their views of the family, school and teaching and also about law and justice on the whole", wrote Justice minister Gun Hellsvik and School minister Beatrice ask in their article "Youngsters must be faced with a firm reaction", that was published in "Burning point", in the Swedish Daily on Sept. 5, 1993. The Govt. ministers (conservative) stipulated that Sweden needs a new family policy.

Commissioner wants child poverty addressed

In her most recent press release, Cindy Kiro makes the following statement:

"It is my job to ensure the rights of every child and young person in New Zealand are recognised and each enjoys good health, education, safety and economic well being."

No the heck it isn't.  The title of "children's commissioner" is a very new one and created by this Labour Government.  She is simply another tool in Nanny State's hand, attempting to scare New Zealanders into embracing more state control of their lives.  No the Government is not responsible to ensure that every child is healthy or has a good education or economic well being.  Safety is an area where I grant you, the Government should have some jurisdiction.  However for the other four areas mentioned, it is clearly the job of the parents to manage these aspects in the life of their child on a day to day basis.  At some point, without a question, it becomes necessary for the Government to step in to halt a horrible miscarriage of justice, of parents upon their own children.

Legislating against every single family is simply going to make the situation worse.  What is needed, and it is painfully obvious, is sensible sentencing.

Turning the tables

by Lavinia Ngatoko from The Challenge Weekly

New Zealanders are being urged to get involved in a campaign aimed at getting the required number of signatures needed for referenda on the anti-smacking law and family issues.

Unity for Liberty, a recently formed group of people fighting the legislation, is running The Great New Zealand Table Challenge next month.

The aim is to get people armed with pens, tables and petitions out into their communities to help get the 300,000 signatures required to force a referendum at next year’s elections. These must be collected by March 1 next year.

There are two petitions, one against the anti-smacking law and the other covering the wider issue of family breakdown in the country.

Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty is asking for 2,500 volunteers, each pledging to get 40 signatures, to come out on the first Saturday of November.

This would result in the collection of 100,000 signatures, he said.

He warned that although the group sympathised with those calling for harsher penalties, it was concerned that good parents were not protected under the current law.

“It will require more than hype and hysteria to change this situation and turn our society from total disaster,” he said.

“To effect change requires calm and deliberate steps to be made. The first step for New Zealanders is to petition for a citizens’ initiated referendum so they can have their say at the 2008 election.” Mr Hill is encouraging those who would like to get involved to start preparing now by ringing their local shops or banks to ask for permission to set up tables outside their premises.

Although people are being encouraged to do this every Saturday of November, if they can get involved on more days that would be even better.

Mr Hill said his group had initially tried to find volunteers to hold placards on footpaths to raise awareness, but had found that difficult to achieve.

“People are willing to sign, but churches don’t seem interested in getting involved,” he said. Petition forms can be downloaded from www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html or www.familyfirst.org.nz

Forum photos

Bradford.

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

Forum on the Family

It's 48 minutes into tomorrow, so I will give a very quick report on the Forum on the Family hosted by Family First on Monday 15 October 2007.

We heard an excellent address from Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He is calling not primarily for longer sentences as such, but just that there would be integrity in our justice system, so that for instance, when a life sentence is handed out, it is in fact a life sentence. Currently, prisoners can get out on an automatic 1/3 of their sentence on parole. Many violent offenders (and that's a very politically correct way of putting it - what about scum of the earth) re-offend while out on bail, go back into jail for a few more years of the easy life, then back out onto the street again to molest or murder a few more innocent victims before the mind-numbingly stupid cycle again repeats itself.

John Tamihere spoke well about not much in particular.

Ian Grant captivated us with down to earth parenting tips. Quite frankly, I wasn't at the forum for parenting tips as I'm one or two years away from being in a position where such information would be helpful. :)

Christine Rankin gave a rousing commentary on her life, and how we should say positive things about people. Apparently she's a buddhist, well she's the blimmin well best buddhist I've met.

Ali Harley, despite her starting off comments, actually had a lot of useful things to say. Her big thing was "if you want to make a difference, if you want to get into the media, make sure that it is dead easy for the media, the reporters to get in touch with you - have your cellphone on!"

Mr. Guyan had some good points too. He's into Christian media. His message was "images are so much more powerful than words, it is images that stick in people's minds."

John Tamihere and Ian Grant disappointed me with their unnecessary use of the B word relating to paedophilia. I'm not going to rave about the low points, there weren't many. It was a good conference thanks Bob, and the good strong coffee and the fantastic food were really appreciated.

If you didn't make it to the forum this time round, be there in 2008.

Hundreds signing in Howick

Citizens Initiated Referendum Report | Howick, Auckland | 13 October 2007

Today outside The Warehouse in Howick a team of two concerned citizens manned a table. A few kilometers down the road another table was kept busy with Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty raking in the signatures and hearing from citizens who were outraged at the repeal of Section59. Craig reported that 450 signatures had been gathered today by his team in Howick.

From their position outside the warehouse the other team of two hardly had time to take a breath with people coming up to the table in an almost constant stream. Andy Moore reported that at least ten young people (about 14 or 15 years old) had to be turned away as they were not eligible to sign. Several young people who had only just turned eighteen, or would turn eighteen before the September 08 election were also eager to put their name to the petition calling for a Referendum on the anti-smacking debate.

One kind lady after signing headed off and brought back a couple of sausages from the sausage sizzle which was operating down near Pak'n Save. Two bottles of V were knocked back by one of the team members, Andy Moore - who also commented that he felt like he needed a third bottle. While initially starting off in the traditional "stand in front of the table" Auckland style, the Southerner soon suggested a change to the Christchurch method, and this was eventually seen to be a viable alternative.

After the day's efforts (9:30 am start, 5:00pm finish), the team shot across the road for a feed before heading back home.

Good keen man, good keen girl.

Wendy's medium Coke. Took me the best part of an hour to demolish.

Abolish the Death penalty? How about Abortion?

yet another excellent article from www.whaleoil.co.nz

NZ behind UN resolution to abolish death penalty - TBR. CC

Helen Clark and her government are behind efforts at the UN to abolish the death penalty. She said;

Quote:

"Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The death penalty violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice a cruel and degrading treatment. It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent. Its very nature means it cannot be reversed."

She just as easily could have said "Abortion is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Abortion violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice a cruel and degrading treatment. It is always inflicted on the innocent. Its very nature means it cannot be reversed." Of course she didn't say that the but the arguments are more relevant for abortion than they are for the Death Penalty. In fact at least the assholes who are executed by and large deserved it having committed heinous crimes, babies on the other hand have committed nothing more than being an inconvenience to the potential mother.

How sanctimonious of Clark to be railing against the Death Penalty while the access to open abortions kills off thousands of potential Kiwi's per annum. We also see further sanctimonious claptrap when people wail on about the death of our babies after they are born when the sad reality is that those cases are little more than "very late term abortions". If a society says it is ok to kill your kids before it is born then the logical conclusion is that it is ok to kill them after they are born. In that way Abortion is the ultimate in child abuse while Clark says that the Death Penalty is the ultimate for of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

She make me sick

lonely support for Cindy Kiro's home-invasion regime

This lady reckons that she is walking from Cape Reinga to the steps of Parliment in support of Cindy Kiro's stepped up home-invasion regime.
I commented on her blog...

Hi Parani,

The Government is interfering with many good families in New Zealand.  The repeal of Section9 means that even more families are going to be invaded and good, loving parents branded as child abusers.

Cindy Kiro has a bad, bad agenda as does Helen Clark and Sue Bradford.  They want to see children more as part of the state than as part of a caring, loving family.

By giving themselves more power in this anti-democratic way (passing the bill into law against the wishes of 83% of New Zealand), it is going to be the worse for children in New Zealand.

The child abusers aren't going to pay any attention to whatever new laws are being passed up in Wellington, they will continue to kill, abuse and molest innocent children.

Good parents know the difference between a smack and child abuse.  Believe me, I have spoken to many hundreds of such parents and they are outraged that their authority as parents has been undermined in this socialistic manner.

section59.blogspot.com

"A loving smack is not child abuse"

Petitioning Parliament

from Rodney's blog - 07 Oct 2007

"I popped along yesterday to help Simeon and Gaylene drum up support for their petition for a referendum on the making it a criminal offence to smack children.

They've had their stand in Howick for the past few Saturdays and have drmmed up big support. Nine out of ten passer-bys were happy to sign and express their disgruntlement of the present law.

Gaylene was the runner-up in the ACT on Campus essay competition, Both her and and Simeon are very switched on and it was great to see them getting signatures and answering questions. They know their stuff."

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

Rodney is right when he says "Nine out of ten passer-bys were happy to sign and express their disgruntlement of the present law."  I put the ratio at closer to 95%, as the support for the petition is consistently overwhelming New Zealand wide.  On Friday when my sister and I ran a table in the center of Christchurch, we had three people who had something negative to say.  One lady walked past.  "Do you think parents should be allowed to smack their children?" she asked.  "Yes".  "At your age, you think that parents should be allowed to smack their children?".  "Yes".  She had no argument, only an astonishment that I held the same view that 83% of New Zealanders hold, that a smack is not child abuse.  Four Australian women started signing and were upset to learn that their signatures did not count.  An Australian family stopped at the table and the father expresed his support for the petition.  A number of young people came past wanting to sign, but learning that they were too young.

Check out www.unityforliberty.net.nz and get involved manning a table to collect signatures for the Referendum.

Another name to add to Bradford's Wall of Shame

September 26th, 2007 by Whaleoil in Section 59

Baby girl's death 'suspicious' - 26 Sep 2007 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news

Another name to add to Bradford's wall of shame.

Jyniah Te Awa.

Poor little kid was supposed to be safe now.

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

Pepper thrown in boy’s eyes as punishment - New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz

Sue Bradford should have a wall of shame outside her office and the names of every child that is abused by their parents or caregivers added to that wall as her stupid law has done nothing to halt the terrible price some of our children pay for having ****holes for parents.

The law was never going to stop this despite all of the stupid cows histrionics.

She and Labour should be apologising to the parents of New Zealand. Fat Chance.

Schools becoming increasingly violent

Teachers protest at school violence | 5:00AM Tuesday September 25, 2007
By Derek Cheng, The Herald

It is a daily struggle for teacher Judy Firkins to manage her 5- and 6-year-old children at Jean Batten School in Mangere.

She has been punched, been struck by objects thrown at her and had to restrain children attacking other pupils in her decile 1 classroom.

"How much more stress do we have to cope with and how resilient does a teacher have to be before we get practical help with these students?" she said in a passionate address to the New Zealand Educational Institute annual meeting in Wellington yesterday.

"As a senior, experienced teacher, these children are demoralising and destroying my enthusiasm to provide an exciting and vibrant programme."

Mrs Firkins, who has been teaching for 35 years, told the Herald she had taken several blows from one boy while trying to protect other pupils.

"He just fisticuffed me and I ended up with bruises on my chest," she said.

"I have one child in the class ... I cannot physically handle him. I think he's learned that the way to cope with anger is violence, and I get worried about the safety of my children and myself in this vulnerable situation.

"And you're just wasting so much valuable teaching time."

Mrs Firkins was one of several teachers at the meeting to express deep concerns over the impact of increasingly aggressive children.

They spoke about how disruption - including physical and verbal attacks from children as young as 2 - was eroding classroom safety and the quality of education.

A New Zealand Educational Institute report based on a survey at the end of last year found that one in seven primary school teachers had been hit by students last year, and 58 per cent reported "aggressive verbalconfrontations" with students.

Dealing with it came at a high personal cost to many teachers, who have to cope with emotional stress, physical injuries and sapping conditions.

"This has become a norm: you can expect to walk into your room every day and know someone is going to make your life hell," said Tauranga teacher Graham Woodhead, who teaches 10- and 11-year-olds.

Early childhood education teacher Diane Lawrence said: "It doesn't only happen in [primary] schools, it starts well before then - the throwing of chairs, the biting, the hitting, the verbal stuff [from 3- or 4-year-olds] and younger. There has been a huge increase in the time since I've been teaching [1981]."

Union members at the meeting backed the institute's report, which endorsed a wider community and Government response to a problem that had its roots outside the classroom.

"We have to change the way people behave, we have to change the way people think, stop these kids from thinking it's okay to behave like that," said the institute's national vice-president, Frances Nelson.

She said the institute would now seek feedback from community groups and the Government on how to address the problem.

Who wants a country where children terrorise their parents?!!!

Reports and articles on Section 59 are thinning down a bit, but will pick up as we approach the 2008 election, when, once again the issue of parental-authority hits the spotlight.  So in the meantime, we will be looking back at a selection of well-thought out articles from the archives.

This article from an insightful 16 year old from Auckland, 15 April 2007.

This is what those who want the repeal are saying, in an example from the NZ Psychological society, with arguments against them in red.

Monday, 26 March 2007, 10:12 am
Press Release: NZ Psychological Society
The NZ Psychological Society Supports The Repeal Of Section 59 Of The Crimes Act

"The NZ Psychological Society strongly supports removing the legislative protection for parents who use 'force by way of correction' towards a child" said spokesman Peter Coleman, the Society's Director of Social Issues. "On the basis of evidence available we consider that the use of physical force on children is ethically unjustifiable( If by ethically unjustifiable they mean wrong, there is no evidence to support this. It is wrong to abuse, not not smack, by the ethics of 80 percent or more of New Zealanders) , demonstratively ineffective (It is fairly obvious to most people that brats have soft parents that spoil them, and "nice kids" have parents who discipline bad behavior)  and counterproductive, leading to poor outcomes in the longer term. We also believe that the current legislation is contrary to the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory", he said.(I read the pertinent section, and it does not say that). 

He said, "Whilst some might argue that there is a distinction between a 'loving' smack and one administered in anger(well, duh), it should be obvious that this adult distinction is meaningless to children(I personally have always known the distinction when disciplined by my own parents, and they have always been careful to reaffirm their love for me when disciplining) , whose welfare is our prime concern. The euphemism of 'light smacking' that is said to cause 'transitory and trifling discomfort' has been introduced into the debate through the Burrows' amendment but we suggest that the phrase "hitting and hurting" more accurately describes the intent and the behaviour of the parent and the experiences of children. So let us be honest and call it what it is, hitting and hurting children".((The intent of parents is not to hurt or for revenge, neither does hitting and hurting describe a smack, so its not honest to call it that.)

"Very often the aims of good parenting and commendable child-behaviour are both confused with the means of achieving them. Punishing a child for inappropriate behaviour may temporally suppress that behaviour but does not bring about lasting change nor does it result in learning alternative behaviours.(Since the beginning of civilisation, it has been considered a respected truth that discipline does work. Is it a good idea to so lightly dismiss the views of 100's of years of millions of peoples informed opinions? )

It is what is done at other times (e.g. when problem behaviour is not occurring) that have the greatest bearing on whether or not the inappropriate behaviour will re-occur. The evidence(Which evidence) is that pro-active teaching of appropriate ways of behaving achieves the goal most effectively and that inflicting physical (or other) punishment after the event is not" he said.(So how do you tell a two year old that can't talk not to turn the hot tap in the bath on? Do you model the behaviour and give him cold baths?, Show him at dinner time, somehow, that turning a hot tap on will burn you?)

He said, "it is unconscionable to deliberately inflict pain on any child, especially when the predictable outcomes of hitting and hurting children are it will not reduce the rate of problem behaviours or increase the rate of positive behaviours.(Hot taps hurt more then smacks)

Rather hitting and hurting is likely to teach the child to avoid detection and teach him or her that hitting and hurting is an acceptable way of solving interpersonal or compliance problems. In the long term it is also likely to result in an increased risk of children developing antisocial behaviours, adjustment problems or a mental illness. How therefore can hitting and hurting children, is as is sometimes argued, achieve the aims of strengthening the family and of protecting society," he asked.(I agree, in the context of hitting and hurting, but not of smacking)

"Do we really think that hitting and hurting children makes for a better parent and person and enhances the parent-child relationship? It is anomalous that the one remaining class of people for whom corporal punishment is still sanctioned under New Zealand law are those who, because of their age are the most likely to suffer physical and psychological harm from such punishment and are the least culpable for their misbehaviour," he said.(Actually, there are already effective laws in place to prevent child abuse in New Zealand, which appears to be the real thing talked about here)

"It is appalling," he said that, "New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child-deaths at the hands of parents and caregivers in the OECD countries. International research demonstrates that almost all of such deaths (and serious injuries) arise in the context of parents administering physical punishment.(Abuse cases, not smacks. This law won't stop people who offend , they're already law breakers. It will only criminalise those who don't abuse, but do smack)

Many of those who are incarcerated in our prisons for offences of violence have been subject to severe physical discipline and abuse as children.(again child abuse, not smacking) Repeal of Section 59 should assist changes in parenting practices that will lead to societal changes over time, and a reduction in child-deaths and injuries may become apparent after a generation or two."(Would it really, given what I said. Would the cost be worth the benefits,  if there even were any. Is it a good idea to give the government the power to remove the children of good parents as abuse victims? The power to use that ability as black mail? "Conform or we'll take the kids"!!!)

ENDS

Next Elections. Please vote National...

Jim Hopkins: Cindy "Big Mother" Kiro is watching

Hat tip: Dad4Justice

Jim Hopkins, Friday September 14, 2007

Commissioner Wants ALL Parents Checked - Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's child murder rate. Under her proposal, parents and caregivers would nominate an authorised inspector for compulsory home visits. Parents who refused to participate would be referred to welfare authorities - News Item

It is with much pride that the Harold now presents a thrilling extract from George Allswell's provocative novel Big Mother Is Watching You:

"Attention all parents!" boomed the strident loudspeaker on top of the big grey Ministry of Love van cruising slowly along the quiet suburban street. "You must be good to your children!"

"I am!" fumed Cindy Smith, near deafened by the din outside.

"And that's an order!!" rasped the harsh metallic voice, apparently unconvinced by her protestations.

"I'd like to order you not to broadcast your stupid messages five minutes after I've finally got little Winston to sleep!" yelled Cindy, her anger lost on the fading voice as the Ministry's windowless vehicle turned into Kiro Lane.


"What's the point," she muttered, resigned to spending another 20 minutes soothing her fractious offspring.

Before she could lift him, there was an urgent knock on the door. Cindy flung it open to two very grey people in very grey, ill-fitting uniforms of a proletarian cut.

"We're from the Family Inspectorate," declared the larger of the duo, presenting a Ministry of Love Identity Badge. "I'm Inspector One and this is Inspector Other One."

"Your baby's crying," said Inspector Other One. "You haven't been ... ?"

"No!" Cindy protested. "I have not!!!"

As if on cue, young Winston's wails became, first a gurgle, then a contented coo. Cindy's relief was palpable.

"We'll suspend judgment on that," Inspector One purred menacingly. "But you have denied access to the approved agencies authorised to conduct mandatory visits for the purpose of assessing family progress, haven't you, Cindy?" She paused. "I presume you think your home's your own?"

"Yes, I do!"

"Well, it's not!!" snapped the second inspector. "So we're coming in. And don't try to stop us. We've got a court order."

"Who cares?" Cindy shrugged. "The police just ignore them!"

"Are you Maori?" asked Inspector One.

"No."

"Then I don't think we'll have any problems," she hissed, striding into the house. "Check the nursery," Inspector One instructed her colleague. "You know what to look for."

Cindy waited until the inspector returned. "We've got a problem," the woman snapped, staring balefully as she re-entered the room. "The child has a Grade 7 cut on the left lower arm!"

"He's just learning to walk!" Cindy protested. "He tripped and scratched ... "

"Citizen 3124583 denies injuring infant," murmured Inspector One, noting the particulars in a large black book.

"I'm a good mother," Cindy pleaded. "I read stories to him. See! Thomas the Tuck Engine. It's a lovely story about how brave little Thomas helps the Fat Controllers take all the bad food out of schools!" She thrust it towards her interrogators. "See for yourself !"

"That won't be necessary," said Inspector One primly. "We don't accept books as proof of approved parenting!"

"Especially when a Citizen also possesses this!!" snarled Inspector Other One, brandishing a pamphlet found in the pile from whence Thomas had come.

Inspector One gasped as the offending document was waved under her nose.

"Why We Need Nuclear Power." The woman read the title with manifest distaste. "And you think this is suitable when you have a baby in the house?"

"It's not for him!!!" Cindy raged. "It's for me. I like to keep an open mind."

"Oh really, Citizen?" inquired the inspectors sardonically. "Well, the Great Leader doesn't. She likes to have a closed mind on the subject. She doesn't want nuclear power, the Party doesn't want nuclear power, so New Zealand won't get nuclear Power, Citizen!"

"Huh! Next time you see her, give her a knowledge wave from me!" Cindy mumbled.

"Pardon?"

"I said nuclear could be the new wave of low emission energy."

"But, Citizen, think of the risks!" urged Inspector Two. "As an approved parent, it is your official obligation to think of the risks!"

"There's risks with everything," Cindy replied. "That's no reason to blindly reject an idea! Look, its obviously risky for 15-year-olds to drive cars but the Leader allows that."

"Enough!!!" shouted Inspector One. "Citizen 3124583, I'm recommending you for immediate re-education as an unsuitable parental entity. Do not approach your child unless supervised and do not attempt to escape. We will be waiting outside until your re-educator arrives!" With that, the two grey figures clicked their heels and left.

Distraught, Cindy slumped into a chair. "When will people like the Children's Commissioner accept that the problem is largely caused by a welfare system which pays people to look after children but ignores how they're doing it? When will she admit it's the state that's failing, by neglecting the very children it professes to help? And when will she stop making ludicrous proposals for everybody else and start putting the Government's own house in order?"

"Don't hold your breath," came a little voice behind her. Cindy turned, astonished, to see Winston. With an inscrutable smile on his innocent face. Cindy couldn't decide whether to be thrilled he'd said his first words or chilled by his prescience.

"Out of the mouths of babes and ... " she whispered, but her message was swamped once again by the blasting loudspeaker on the Ministry van. "Attention all parents! Attention all parents ... "

Anti-Smacking Bill has failed

from http://www.geekzone.co.nz/dmw/3705

It is an indication of the abject failure of the Anti-Smacking Bill to have any impact on child abuse that some of its most vociferous supporters are now proposing to spend $5m a year of taxpayers money to spy on babies and toddlers.

Will National now pledge to repealing the Anti-Smacking Bill? It's obvious to the overwhelming majority of Kiwis -- who never supported it -- that it is not working (and under our breath are all saying "Told you so").

Liam

Liam we're going now. Liam, come on. Put the lion down Liam, we're going now. We have to go and meet Daddy, come on. Liam! All right, that's enough. Liam! I'm going to count to three. 1... 2... 3... Liam, come now. Put the lion back. Right! That's enough! We're going now Liam. That's it. Right! That's enough! 1... 2...

She doesn't get to 3. What's the point? Liam will come when he's ready thankyou very much. Liam wants to buy the soft-toy lion. Why can't he have it? Why does he have to leave the toy-shop now? He hears his Mum entreating him to obey her. Hahah, it's a fantastic game. He's loving it, he knows his mother can't make him do anything.

At three years old, young Liam is the ideal autonomous child. He is so happy and well-brought up. At the age of four months, he was entrusted into the caring hands of the local day-care institution. Receiving quality education and instruction from 8am til 6pm 5 days a week, Liam could never fully realise just how fortunate he was.
------------------

I stood in the toyshop and observed. The desperation in the mother's voice was pitiful. She had gone to the trouble of bringing her son into the shop, he had had a good look around, and now it was time to go. Her voice was shrill as she remonstrated with her son. There were no warnings of consequences, no mentions of his privileges being removed. Only repeated pleas that he would follow his mum out of the shop.

It's sad, how many mums you hear - I'm going to count to three. - they never make it to three, because if they do, they don't know what they'll do. So they count 1, 2 very slowly and then ask the child again. The number of times this mother said "right, that's enough!" was ridiculous. Four or five times at least. Little Liam just ignored mummy. What the heck, what had she ever done for him?

When Liam finally decided to leave the shop, his mother praised him. I spoke to a man standing next to me. There's some badly behaved kids around aren't there . He told me that it was just human nature, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Well you know what sort of adults they make don't you. The other man didn't respond.

What can Mum and Dad do? If they haven't got anything with which to back up their instructions, what is going to happen? In New Zealand now, by removing their child to time-out or by giving their child a smack, no matter how light, parents are breaking the law and officially branded as child-abusers. Mum and Dad want to raise a well-adjusted, well-behaved son who will grow up to be a successful and considerate citizen. But the Government is systematically stripping away the parents right and ability to do this.
------------------

The world is so blimmin politically correct.

We wouldn't dream of smacking the dear wee angel would we?

And in other news: "Police to politically correct to stop gay child abuse". English "couple", Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32 have been allowed to foster 18 children despite allegations that they had abused the first two children. Eighteen? What a sad way for these children to be brought up. In what could only be a dysfunctional "family" where there's two dad's and no mum.

Kidscape director Michele Elliott said: "People have let political correctness get in the way of good practice and common sense and and children have been abused."

The beurocrats and socialists are so concerned about rights, homosexuality and child autonomy that they are exposing the kiddies to even more abuse.

Unity for Liberty: Rodney Campaign report

Arna Mountain has weaved some magic and is now setting the pace and it's
all happening again on Sat 15th Sept(). Here's her report from Rodney's
Campaign

On Saturday 1 September from 9-12.00 noon a group of about 30 supporters
from Unity for Liberty and Voice Rodney went out on the streets in
Orewa, Whangaparaoa, Silverdale and Warkworth. With their placards and
enthusiasm  they asked people to sign petitions pushing for the two
referendums. The group split and went to 4 different locations. Sports
playing fields in Stanmore Bay,and outside The Plaza, Silverdale, and
the Orewa shopping centre. There was also a group in the Warkworth
Shopping area.
Although a little disappointed that so few people turned up we were very
encouraged  that 1174 signatures were collected in 3 hours.
People stopped their cars when they saw the placards and hopped out to
sign the petitions. At times we had a number of people wanting to sign
at the same time and they would wait till one the clip boards were free.
Some shop assistants came over from the local supermarket to see what we
were doing during their breaks. It was obviously a topic of
conversation.
I think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of discontent. There
are 1000's out there who want to sign these petitions. They no longer
want the government to intrude into their family life. They have gone
too far!

We were fortunate that two reporters from local papers stopped and
wanted photos and details of what we were doing.

I encourage others to start campaigns in their areas. It may seem
formidable but 83% of the nation will be  behind this and will support
you, as many of us are finding out.

We are having another campaign in Rodney on Sat 15 September 9-12 noon.
Please join us this time and make a difference. It is not hard to get
signatures. Meet again.at 8:40am at  Gateway Church Carpark, Red Beach
Rd.

Sweden's Smacking Law Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When good parenting becomes a crime

World Net Daily Exclusive Commentary | August 22, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com

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

2 Comments:

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

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

3 Questions that must be answered

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

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

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

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

When good parenting becomes a crime .

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

When good parenting becomes a crime .

Posted: August 22, 2007



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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