Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Action Alert - Petition on Anti smacking law - From Family First


WHAT THE MEDIA HAVE BEEN SAYING TODAY REGARDING THE ANTI-SMACKING REFERENDUM

" Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures " TV3 news site
" The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum." - NewstalkZB
" Smacking opponents told to 'move on' after failure " NZ Herald
" Smacking Petition falls short " Dominion Post

HERE'S THE FACTS ....
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216

How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027

How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate)

So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect

But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate

That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying

So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
Beats me (pardon the pun!). They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do we have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months. As they say, "it's not over until the...."

Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)

So you have enough to force the Referendum?

You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we need a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure

What about the 2nd petition demanding a Commission of Enquiry to identify and tackle real child abuse and their causes
This petition is also 20,000 short but because it had less than the required number of signatures as at the first cut-off date of February 28th, the 20,000 on the 2nd petition need to be submitted by May 14 - that's right - 2 weeks away

SO WHAT NOW?

Thought you'd never ask!

We need to collect 20,000 signatures on BOTH petitions preferably within 2 weeks.

WE'RE TOO CLOSE TO FAIL AT THE LAST HURDLE

1. Print off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Get as many signatures as you can on both petitions over the next 2 weeks

3. Sending them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible - but at the latest by Monday May 12. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

4. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.

Thanks for your efforts.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Count on Anti-Smacking Petition Labelled ‘Incredibly Dodgy’

Family First Media Release 29 April 2008

HUNDREDS OF PETITION FORMS DOWNLOADED TODAY
Family First NZ is labeling the counting of the signatures on the anti-smacking petition as 'incredibly dodgy'.

"Despite a very thorough audit of a sample of signatures, the government statistician has applied a further margin of error against the number of signatures," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "But margins of error go both ways, plus and minus, and it completely ignores the purpose and function of the previous thorough audit process."

"This would suggest that there is an agenda to try and 'kill' the petition."

Family First is still completely confident of success with the petition despite this setback and says the websites hosting the petition forms have been inundated with downloads of the petition form today.

"We have had almost 300 downloads just today on just the Family First website, and many emails requesting the forms," says Mr McCoskrie. "That is similar with other organisations hosting the forms."

"Despite the hopes and dreams of Labour and the Greens, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Parents who opposed this law will get to be heard – no matter how hard they make it."

FACT SHEET
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216
How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027
How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an 'invalid' rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither's law and order petition had 20% invalid rate).
So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 - a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes - that's what you would expect
But they're saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That's what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying
So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
That's the million dollar question. They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing 'margin of error' and despite their already thorough audit), said it's their 'best estimate' - and under the Act, they don't have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do the organisers have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months.
Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend - gotta love those petrol-heads!)
So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we will collect a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure.

Clerk Reports on Petition: 20,000 signatures to go

"Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures" screams the headline on the TV3 news site.

NewstalkZB picks up the story, picking up on comments from Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the Anti-Smacking bill. "The opponents of the "anti-smacking" law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum."

Stuff.co.nz presents a confused story, claiming that the petition organisers have been dealt a "major blow".

David Farrar at Kiwiblog tells it like it is.

"They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates. This is about normal off mory.

So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.

I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting."

Meanwhile, Bob McCoskrie doesn't have any time for the media hype, and gets to the main point, which is:

"the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents."

The Clerk of the House has disqualified 16,294 signatures - this comes as no surprise, despite the wild exaggerations from the mainstream media. In fact, this is a relatively low number of signatures to be crossed out, as we see in an excerpt from this article (23 Feb 08) from the Section 59 blog:

"In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures."

"We have already collected an additional 20,000 signatures" says Larry Baldock in his Press Release, 29 April 2008, “We were always concerned about the hurdles to be crossed in the audit process, said Mr Baldock, and for that reason we continued collecting signatures after we handed in the 324,511 signatures on Feb 29th."

Click here to download the petition form. If you haven't already, sign it, get your friends and family to sign it, and then send it to the address on the bottom of the form.

Petition calling for referendum on anti smacking law fall shorts by about 15000

This from Stuff.co.nz My comments in italics

Organisers of a petition to force a smacking referendum have been dealt a major blow after failing to gather enough signatures. No it is not a "major blow" we have two more months to make up the difference.

They now have two more months to collect enough signatures.

The petition needed 285,027 (Stuff stuffed up and got the wrong number in there article) signatures to force a referendum but fell short after a number were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory's date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times.

In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said an audit of signatures found that no more than 269,500 were eligible. That is a shortfall of about 15,500 signatures.

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskie appeared confident that any shortfall would easily be made up in the two months available.

He said politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of parents.

"The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws."

The petition by Sheryl Savill asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

If the organisers succeed in collecting the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible electors they will be able to force a referendum at the next election, though its results will be non-binding.

________________________________________
If you haven't signed the petition yet and would like to, please go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it then sign it and send it to the address on the website.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process

As per my last post, there is obviously a level of confusion over the future of the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law. Below I have a copy of the Referendum Process from the Parliament website (you can download a PDF version by clicking here). I have added some comments to the chart. I'm just focussing on the top petition question,
"Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"


Some people have been unsure of what the question for the Referendum means. It is saying, "should a smack be illegal?" And my answer, and the answer of the aproximately 70% plus New Zealanders opposed to this draconian home-invasion law will be a most definite NO.

Click here for a Press Release from Larry Baldock (Petition Organiser), where he comments on the issue.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Referendum Scaremongering from the Media

"Thousands of pro-smacking signatures invalid" - blares the headline on the NewstalkZB website. Firstly, it is absolutely normal in any petition, for a percentage of signatures to be declared invalid. Secondly, what is this reference to "pro-smacking signatures?" The question asked on the petition, "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand" is as much pro-smacking as Sue Bradford is pro-smacking. The article continues, stating:
"It appears a decision on whether there will be a public referendum on the anti-smacking law will come down to the wire... ...it has been discovered that thousands of the signatures are invalid and there may not be enough to reach the required level." - NewstalkZB, 24 April

TV3 joins in the scaremongering, with the following statement:
"Opponents of the law that bans smacking are waiting anxiously to find out whether they have collected enough valid signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum." - TV3, 24 April
Neither of these two statements are correct. The law states that, following the counting of the signatures, the petition organiser is granted an extra two months to collect the number of signatures which has been found to be lacking. In this case, the number of signatures lacking is estimated to be about 3,000. Larry Baldock will have a good buffer of signatures by now, and when the Clerk tells us how many signatures we are short of (or in excess of) the required number, it will not be a problem.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Petition calling for referendum on "anti-smacking" law results unclear

It is unclear whether we have gained enough signatures on the petition calling for a referendum on the 'anti-smacking' law to have it put on the ballot paper.

The Kiwi Party leader put out this press release explaining the results.

Kiwi Party Leader and anti-smacking petition organiser Larry Baldock confirmed today that the preliminary results from Sheryl Savill’s petition to force a referendum on the question, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in NZ?’ was going to be very close to being just under or over the required threshold.

A total of 324,316 signatures were handed in on Feb 29th. To succeed in forcing a referendum it is required to have the certified signatures of 10% of those enrolled on the electoral role which on that day was 285,027. That would therefore require a success rate of 87.88% from the audit process undertaken by the Chief Registrar of Electors. A random sample of 29,501 signatures was taken and checked individually against the electoral role with 25,754 qualifying as certified correct.

Mr Baldock said “If I did my own simple maths on those figures we would then estimate that we had a success rate of 87.29%

“However I am informed by the Clerk that the Government Statistician needs 90 hours to complete a very complicated mathematical formula to officially ascertain the number of correct signatures. I have no idea why this must take so long and whether there will be any great variation from my simple maths. It begins to look like the Duckworth-Lewis system of determining the results in rain shortened One Day Cricket matches, and we all know how they turn out, usually in the other teams favour! said Mr Baldock.

The final result must be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than next Tuesday April 29th by the Clerk of the House.

_________________________________________

So if you take 87.29% of the 324316 signatures collected we get 283095 correct signatures. That is 1935 signatures short. Lets see what the Clerk has to say on Tuesday.
_____________________________________
Also posted at NZ Debate

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Anti-Smacking Law Now Proved to Criminalise Good Parents

Family First Media Release 10 April 2008

Family First NZ says that the charging of a Glen Innes man which was subsequently dismissed in the Auckland District Court today is evidence that good parents are victims of the anti-smacking law, a law which has done nothing to stem rates of real child abuse.

"The lawyer representing the father is agreeing with Family First's original assertions that good and loving fathers (and mothers) would be victims of this ideologically flawed law, that members of families would use it against other members, and that supporters of Bradford's anti-smacking law have simply abused child abuse laws," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First has already publicized many cases where good parents have come under the suspicion and investigation of CYF and police for light smacking, or not even smacking at all.

"As well as the many cases of good parents being investigated, here we have perfect evidence of wasted police resources and time and a good family impacted by badly drafted legislation resulting in a good father being charged and dragged through court."

"It is sad that it comes in a week where a step-father has been charged with the murder of 22-month-old Tokoroa boy Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn, a woman has been charged with the murder of ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa from Manurewa, a father has been charged with the murder of Otahuhu two-month-old Tahani Mahomed from Otahuhu last December, and two men have already pleaded guilty to the gang-related drive-by shooting of Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Sue Bradford was right. The anti-smacking law has done nothing to stop child abuse."

Family First is demanding that the anti-smacking law be amended to protect good parenting, and that resources, policing and policy is targeted at the real causes of child abuse. Family First's 5-point Action Plan can be viewed at www.stoptheabuse.org.nz.

"The promises made by Helen Clark and John Key have tragically, especially for this family but also for all NZ parents, shown the law to be severely deficient," says Mr McCoskrie.

UK: Couple turned down as foster parents for smacking policy

David and Heather Bowen, who only smack their daughter as a last resort.

this from www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk 9 April 2008

A Christian couple have been barred from fostering because they occasionally smack their own daughter as "a last resort".

David and Heather Bowen, of Whitmore Road, Taunton, say they would never smack a foster child.

But they were rejected because of their discipline policy for their own child, Emma, 9.

Mrs Bowen, 47, a volunteer helper at Wellsprings Primary School, which Emma attends, said: "We've been open and honest - we smack Emma once or twice a year, but wouldn't smack a foster child.

"It's controlled, on the leg and legal.

"We sit her down and explain what she's done wrong. It's a last resort."

Click here to read the entire article

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Anti-Smacking Bill hits California

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber has introduced AB 2943 to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old in California. It is identical to last year's AB 755, which drew national attention.

The bill will ban "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, [or] punching." The penalties in the bill, which can be seen here, are fairly substantial. A few thoughts:

1) I don't believe in and do not practice physical discipline of my kids

2) The bill represents another state intrusion on the family and parenting rights, which is already a problem.

3) As with any government policy related to the family, there is the definite possibility of anti-male bias in the law's application. Bystanders, police officers, judges and juries may well see a mother who spanks as a poor, overburdened woman trying to control her out-of-control kids, while viewing a father who spanks as abusive.

Lenin perceptively said "Only weak governments need strong measures." I think it is often true that only weak parents--or parents who've been temporarily placed in a position of weakness--need "strong measures" like spanking or other forms of physical discipline. However, I do believe there can be extraordinary situations where spanking a young child is appropriate.

An example from my youth--my mother, my younger sister and I were near a crowded, busy street and my sister--probably age 3 or 4 at the time--bolted out into the street. My mother quickly got her and then spanked her--not because my mom was mad or scared (though I'm sure she was), but because she wanted to give my sister a quick and memorable lesson to prevent her from ever bolting out into the street again like that. I don't know that I would've handled it the same way, but it's certainly a defensible reaction, and hardly something worthy of government sanction.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Hypocrisy from Peter Dunne

Hypocrisy Again From Mr Dunne

Larry Baldock picked up on it and put out this press release.

_____________________________________________________

Peter Dunne is reported in the Dominion Post as saying it is "time for the people to decide." He refers to the need to have a referendum on the review of the MMP system of New Zealand politics.

Mr Dunne fails to acknowledge that there is already a referendum waiting in the wings. It has the numbers - over 600,000 combined signatures from the voting public of New Zealand, calling for:

a.. A referendum on the controversial anti-smacking laws. b.. The establishment of a Royal Commission into indentifying the real causes of family breakdown, dysfunction and child abuse" says Larry Baldock, leader of Kiwi Party.

"Let's have one referendum at a time. The people have called for it and good democratic governance would not stand in the way of it being held."

Mr Dunne, in his apparent new found respect for 'the people to decide,' can now declare his intention to respect the referendum on repealing the anti-smacking bill he voted for, in order to be legitimately consistent".

Mr Dunne suggests that "MMP is working out in practice to be a little different from what was intended..."

The Kiwi Party suggests that is because party leaders like Mr Dunne have ignored the will of those that elected them and have signed up to support a Government ideology that does not have the support of the vast majority of New Zealanders.

There are many voters who see the passing of controversial laws as 'somewhat different than what they intended their chosen party to vote for'.

"Yes, "It's time", Mr Dunne to let the people to decide - so let's see how the citizens of New Zealand respond to the Referendum right in front of them".

"We can then monitor the politicians response in due course". Says Mr Baldock.


Friday, February 29, 2008

The Cartoon they didn't publish...


This cartoon was created by Stan Blanch in response to The Press's two highly offensive cartoons, targeting Family First and Larry Baldock, and accusing them of being pro child-abuse. When you have to sink to the level of making a joke of child abuse, there is something terribly wrong. Or of slandering - yes, that word - slandering such a man as Bob McCoskrie who has led the charge with the Five Point Action Plan to combat child abuse in New Zealand. You can view the two cartoons below...



The Press is not worth the paper it is written on.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Smack should be ok - The Herald

from The Herald, Tuesday February 26, 2008 By Sacha Cobur...

I agree with Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock. Eight words which churn my stomach as I write them. When left-leaning, social liberals like me are forced to align with the fundies speaking in tongues and organising petitions, you know our little country at the bottom of the world has gone mad.

I want to smack my daughter. At least twice today I'm likely to threaten it and may even make meaningful preparations to carry it out. Send her to her room. Get the wooden spoon out of the drawer. Enough to be arrested for an attempted smack, I'd have thought. Is it wrong to fantasise about a night in the lock-up?

"You mean that in solitary I'd be by myself for 23 hours in a row?"

Smacking my son was a parenting strategy of last resort and was immediately effective when dealing with defiance and dangerous situations. I've never smacked in anger and never without issuing a final warning first. I'm a text-book smacker. Pin-up girl has a certain ring to it.

But now, with my precious Portia, aged 2 years 8 months, my tool box is looking a little empty.

"No," she says. "I won't put my seat belt back on." Try reasoning, Aunty Sue B suggests. "If we crash, you'll get hurt."

"No, I didn't."

Try praising the good behaviour, says Aunty Cindy K.

"Mummy loves it when you wear your seatbelt."

"No! I love Daddy!"

Wait out the bad behaviour, advises Aunty Dianne L.

Good idea until my phone rings: "Hello Sacha, are you coming to get your son from school today? It's 5.30pm and the cleaners are going home."

"Not yet," I reply. "Just wearing Portia down, should be there by midnight."

Scare her, suggests my guardian demon.

"If you don't put it back on, tonight I'll close your bedroom door and leave the light off." Cue screaming, but still no seat belt. What kind of parental monster uses fear of the dark as a legitimate tool?

The problem for me is that I love the law and the democratic process. As a lawyer, I understand the benefits of obeying the law and the potential consequences of disregarding it. I want to parent within the law and I want to be able to use smacking as one of many parenting tools.

I'm a bloody good parent; well-read, patient, on the Board of Trustees even. I know that clothes driers are for clothes only and that I shouldn't leave my child with the man next door who's on bail awaiting trial for manslaughter. I understand the food pyramid and surely I get brownie points with the Greens for breastfeeding both babies past 12 months.

I don't believe smacking is for every parent or every child. I don't believe that it's an effective tool once children get beyond four or five. I wouldn't insist that you smack your child, but I don't believe Parliament fixes anything by taking away my right to smack mine.

Sue Bradford told us that we had to stop treating our children as property. They are people too, with their own minds and their own rights. Illuminating stuff. But the police officer who pulled me over and asked why my child was wandering willy-nilly around the backseat didn't buy it. I am apparently totally responsible for her well-being and behaviour, but not to be trusted when it comes to making parenting decisions about how to develop her sense of right and wrong.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the whole smacking debate is the lack of intellectual rigour evident on both sides of the issue. To continue the rhetoric about child abuse and smacking having any casual link is absurd - as all of us who were smacked-not-beaten as children can attest. And to suggest on the other hand that God gave us the right to smack is equally offensive - he also okayed some other pretty dodgy ideas.

The obvious victims remain. Children who are violently abused in their homes are no more protected than they were before the law change. But my own daughter is undoubtedly a victim too and our whole family suffers the consequences of her strong sense of self-above-all-else.

She has, in the past six months, learned that there are few sanctions I can impose on her that are meaningful enough to deter her from her intended course of action. She knows that if she screams loudly and for long enough she might not get her way but, by golly, there'll be a flurry of action around her. In short, she has learnt that behaving badly works.

How ironic if, in years to come, the lack of corrective smacking in childhood is raised in mitigation of criminal offending.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Petition Target Reached

Thankyou to all of you who helped collect signatures on the petition calling for a referendum on the question...

"Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"
We now have 322,752 signatures on this petition, meaning that there will be a referendum.

When Sue Bradford realised that we were going to make the target, she told the media that she would be watching carefully to make sure that no parties attempted to support the referendum. Now that we have the numbers, she has said...

"it is unlikely that any government would go back to a situation where the law promotes the hitting of children and babies."
And she's absolutely right. Firstly, if the law was repealed back to it's initial state, it would not be "promoting" anything, merely allowing it. Secondly, she brings out the tired old phrase "hitting of children and babies". I am utterly opposed to anyone hitting a child or a baby, however I am able to tell the difference between a hit - a beating, and a loving smack. So can 83% of New Zealanders.

A word from Bob McCoscrie of Family First who has tirelessly worked for the referendum.

"Thanks to the efforts of people like you, there IS going to be a Referendum at the upcoming general election on the extremist anti-smacking bill which has targeted good parents and has failed miserably to target the real causes of child abuse.

The reason we have 'upped' the target?
In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither's 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures. While we don't expect anywhere near as many disqualified signatures, it is beneficial to have a 'buffer' of signatures! Submitting well over the legally required 286,000 signatures would also drive the point home that this legislation is hugely unpopular and ineffective. (that's why we originally set the target as 300,000)."


The Press Conference where the number of signatures was announced

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Huge Opposition to Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed

Smacking Research Confirms Huge Opposition to Anti-Smacking Law

Family First NZ is not surprised by the findings of a Research NZ poll which has found continued massive opposition to the anti-smacking law.

According to the poll, 74% believe that parents should be able to smack children – an equivalent rate to 12 months ago (73%) when a similar poll was done.

"This is consistent with all other polling which has averaged around the mid 70's low 80's percent opposition to this extremist law," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ."These 74% of NZ'ers are not the 'thrashers and bashers' of children as suggested by the Prime Minister. They are not condoning child abuse as offensively implied by supporters of the law. They are teachers, social workers, mums and dads, grandparents, police officers, school principals, early childhood educators, doctors, counsellors, and youthworkers who simply know that a smack is not child abuse, and that good parents should not be criminalised in their efforts to raise law-abiding and responsible citizens."

"The so-called compromise has quite clearly given parents no confidence or certainty."

"Last week the government announced $800,000 to tell parents that they are valued. 74% of parents would prefer a law change to an advertising campaign," says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First calls on all politicians to acknowledge the voice of NZ parents and to amend the law to that proposed (and consistently supported) by MP Chester Borrows so that light smacking is not a crime in NZ.

"It is also ironic that this poll has been released the same day as a book entitled 'Unreasonable Force'. The huge majority of NZ'ers are rejecting the reasonableness of this anti-smacking law," says Mr McCoskrie.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Timaru Lady Jailed

Scrubone at www.halfdone.wordpress.com comments on the Timaru Lady case...

Sadly, not all people are perfect.

The woman who smacked her son and became the "Poster Parent" for the anti-smackers has been sent to jail for an unrelated assult.

No one ever claimed this woman was perfect. What we claimed was that her actions were not abuse - a claim backed by the facts and the courts.

We also claimed that CYFS was wildly out of line - and evidence still remains that that is the case.

Russell Brown stick the knife in, and gives it a good twist.

Note: I've made the decision to redact significant parts of today's post because they may breach a suppression order relating to an earlier case. This seriously vexes me, because it has the effect of protecting some people — most notably Family First's Bob McCoskrie — who have been dishonest about their role in what happened.

Implication is a good way if impugning character without stating facts.

Bob has never, ever advocated child abuse, or behaviours that would lead to it. Neither have I or most (sadly I cannot say all) advocates of parental rights.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Anti-smacking petition closes in on signature target

This from Stuff.co.nz

Organisers of a petition to force an election-day referendum on anti-smacking laws say they are just 5000 signatures short of their target.

They have until the end of this month to reach 300,000 and are confident they can do it.

Parliament passed the bill that outlaws smacking in May last year, and within weeks opponents were organising the petition against it.

Former United Future MP, and now leader of the new Kiwi Party, Larry Baldock said last night that the total was 295,000. "Technically, we only need 286,000 but we always aimed for 300,000 to make sure we have a bit of a buffer," he said. "We could lose 10 per cent or 20 per cent of them, so we'll continue to collect. But we're certainly going to have enough to meet the requirements on the 29th."

The buffer is needed because the signatures on citizen-initiated referenda are put through a rigorous checking process by electoral authorities.

Some previous petitions have been handed in with enough signatures but so many were lost during checking that they failed to meet the requirements.

The result of a referendum on the laws will not be binding on the Government.

The legislation bans the smacking of children as a punishment, although "reasonable force" can still be used to stop them harming themselves or others. -- NZPA

_____________________________________

It's great to see that we are almost there, and it is also great news to hear that we only actually need 286,000 not 303,000.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Loving father labeled child abuser

this from NewstalkZB 12/02/2008 12:52:03

It has emerged a Christchurch man who says he was charged after flicking his son's ear is accused of assaulting both of his children.

Last month Jimmy Mason went public with his claims he was harassed by the police when he was spotted disciplining his son.

Police initially warned him, but later charged him with two counts of assault. In court this morning it was revealed the charges are in relation to both his sons, who are aged two and four.

Mason will appear in court on February 26.

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

As someone said, "A dad who takes his boys out for a bike ride is not going to be the kind of person who would abuse them". The law may have changed, but the principle remains the same, it is a dad's duty to love and discipline his children. 83% of us, New Zealanders made it very clear that we did not want this draconian law. John Key, we are waiting for the National Party to take a position on the Referendum.

Read more about the case here.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Anti-smack minister smacked own kids

This from news.com.au


THE minister whose disgraced department broke up a family because a grandmother smacked her grandson has admitted he smacks his own children.

The startling admission by embattled Community Services Minister Kevin Greene also puts the father of six in direct conflict with his own department's rule, which is that children should never be smacked.

The child protection sector is in an uproar following yesterday's revelation by The Daily Telegraph that children had been removed from their grandparents' home because the grandmother smacked her six-year-old grandson for playing in a stormwater drain.

They were official DOCS carers and had looked after the three brothers and sister several times in the past six years.

Despite DOCS listing smacking as a "risk of harm" offence that must be reported, Mr Greene said spanking could have its place.

"My wife and I have raised six children together. Three are now adults, two are in their late teens and our youngest is 12," he said.

"There were times when our judgment has been that it was appropriate to smack the children. But we've moved past those days of toddler tantrums and disobedient kids."

Mr Greene also said he supported the law in NSW that allows smacking but outlaws excessive physical punishment.

"While discipline is a personal judgement for parents, one thing is paramount – the child's health and safety should never be threatened by the course of action parents take."

Foster care workers yesterday were asking how DOCS can punish foster carers for doing something their own minister has condoned.

"It puts a lot of confusion in carers' minds when he is saying, 'Do as I say, not as I do'," Foster Care Association president Mary-Jane Beach said.

"Some carers would agree that an occasional smack on the bottom doesn't hurt and they find the department's no smacking stipulation difficult. Why would you give a mixed message like that?"

The woman whose grandchildren have been taken away from her was furious at the apparent contradiction.

"It is like the rich and the poor; you have one set of rules for one and one for another," Catherine (not her real name) said.

"It was just to teach our grandson about getting down the drain.

"If it's good for him (Greene) why isn't it good enough for the other parents and grandparents who only do it when a child mucks up?"

The fresh controversy comes amid calls to elevate the Community Services – currently a junior portfolio – to a senior Cabinet position.

Mr Greene is a first-time minister accused of being out of his depth in his handling of recent child death cases.

Andrew McCallum, from the Association of Children Welfare Agencies, said DOCS was not given enough importance by the Government.

Monday, February 04, 2008

Children's Commissioner - "Smacking = Violence = Criminals"

Lucyna at NZ Conservative comments on Cindy Kiro's most recent press release.

Cindy Kiro has an article in today's Dominion Post that draws a rather long bow. She asserts that violence causes violence and implies that smacking is violence, therefore smacking creates violent individuals of the type that she has talked to in prison.

What I find even more disturbing than her tightly held belief that smacking is violence, is the statement that seems to come out of nowhere like a tourette's expletive - "Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them."

What the!!!

Who is calling for the right to "punch a child in the head"???

Is Cindy on some kind of memory lane trip at this point where she remembers something horrible from her own childhood?

By putting that statement in her article, Cindy Kiro is directly implying that all of us who believe we need to be able to physically discipline our children (should it become necessary) and not be criminalised are potentially out of control child murderers that need to be dobbed in by our friends and neighbours.

Just what type of childhood did Cindy Kiro have?

Click here to read the article

Saturday, February 02, 2008

ACT Pushes Anti-Smacking Referendum

Rodney Hide & Heather Roy
Saturday 2 February 2008
Crime & Justice

ACT New Zealand Leader Rodney Hide and Deputy Leader Heather Roy have taken out a half page advertisement in tomorrow's 'Sunday Star Times', urging New Zealanders to sign a petition calling for a Citizen's Initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law passed by both National and Labour last year.

"We believe that New Zealanders should have their say on this controversial law, not just politicians," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.

"A Citizen's Initiated Referendum will enable New Zealanders to tell politicians what they think. The organisers of the petition have done a great job getting signatures, and people are keen to sign - 280,000 signatures have been collected so far, but the organisers need 300,000 by the end of February to ensure a referendum.

"That's why we have pitched in; it's vital that New Zealanders get to have a say. ACT was the only Party that voted against the anti-smacking law - which equates good parents who smack their children with child abusers and criminalises them.

"That's wrong; ACT believes that parents should be able to choose the best method of raising their children and teaching them right from wrong.

"National and Labour passed the anti-smacking Bill against the wishes of 80 percent of New Zealanders. We believe it should be up to New Zealanders to choose whether they want to make smacking a criminal offence. It's time they had a say.

"We urge New Zealanders to sign the petition, which calls for a referendum on this law. Copy the petition and get your friends and colleagues to sign it too - that way we can ensure that the voices of the people of New Zealand can be heard," Mr Hide and Mrs Roy said.

ENDS

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Print it, sign it, send it.

One month to go

93% of the signatures required already collected

Only 20,000 to go

It's that close!

Please help us 'cross the line' in style!

The organisers of the two petitions demanding a Referendum on both the anti-smacking law and the need to target the real causes of child abuse need to deliver 300,000 signatures on BOTH petitions to Parliament by Feb 29 (last day of Feb).

Family First wants to help them achieve that target, and to make this issue not only the political issue of 2007 but also of 2008!

Would you consider :

1. Printing off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Getting as many signatures as you can on both petitions

3. Sending them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible - but at the latest by Feb 22. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

We believe the politicians need to listen to the voice of the NZ public on this issue.


Families broken up to meet bureaucratic targets

The baby snatchers: Judge orders social workers to hand back newborn child taken from hospital at 4am

A newborn baby was illegally snatched from its mother by social workers in the early hours of yesterday morning.

Officials claimed the 18-year-old mother was unfit to care for the child because of mental health problems.

But hours later a High Court judge ordered the infant to be returned immediately, saying the social workers had acted beyond their powers.

Mr Justice Munby told the officials that they "should have known better".

The troubling case follows complaints from parents that social workers have taken their children for adoption without good reason, and suggestions that families are being broken up to meet bureaucratic targets.

Last night campaigners welcomed the ruling and praised the mother's lawyers for their prompt action to reunite the baby with its mother.

The child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was born healthy at 2am yesterday.

Later Ian Wise, appearing for the mother, referred to as "G", told the High Court in London that the child was taken from her at about 4am without her consent.

The child was removed after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth plan" prepared by local authority social services.

The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood and suffers from mental health problems, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers...

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Child Abuse is not funny

Letter sent to the Editor of the Press, 30 Jan 08


Dear Sir,

What a disgusting, misleading cartoon was published in the editorial on Tuesday, the 29th of January.
I was appalled that Mike Moreu could so terribly misrepresent the truth and that it could be accepted. Phrases like:

"Abuse has it's use" and, "Dad beat me but my shrink says I'm okay," not only distort what Family First stands for, but make fun of child abuse.
To put Bob Mc Croskrie in the same box as child abusers is ridiculous. He was the one who came up with a five-point action plan to get rid of child abuse.
Why is it that the minority's view on this issue should get published, but the majority's view is left out?
New Zealand: Toleration and Freedom of Speech. Why are we only hearing the minority?
Come on! Let's stand up for what we really believe.

Yours Sincerely, Lydia

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

Absolutely spot on.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Please vote in this poll

TV3 has a poll on the following question:

Should there be a referendum on the anti-smacking bill?

For the sake of democracy, please take 30 seconds to have your say in this poll.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx

Dad charged with assault for flicking son's ear

We said it would happen.  John Key, now is the time for a statement on the referendum.

from www.newstalkzb.co.nz 29/01/2008 11:20:02

A Christchurch father has been charged with assault after admitting he flicked his son's ear for misbehaving.

Local musician Jimmy Mason says he flicked the three-year-old to reprimand him for riding his bike dangerously near a busy one-way road on the Bridge of Remembrance, in the central city.

Inspector Garry Knowles says after investigating the case, police have decided to charge the man with two counts of assault on a child. He will appear in court on February 12.

Mr Knowles believes the charges would have been laid even if last year's repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, known as the anti-smacking law, had not gone through.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Here is the latest count on the petition calling for a referendum on the anti smacking law

signature counter
only 23000 away from target!!
This count does not include the signatures collected over the past weekend.
just click it, print it, sign it, send it !!

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Smacking Law Referendum Likely

David Farrar at Kiwiblog reports...

The SST reports that it looks likely that opponents of the anti-smacking law will gain the 300,000 signatures they need to trigger a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

They have to do it by 1 March 2008. Now just because on paper they have over 10% of the eligible voters, doesn't mean they automatically succeed. A proportion of the signatures are always found to be invalid.

The Government will have a dilemma over the timing of any referendum. The Clerk of the House has two months, or until the end of April to determine the the petition has enough signatures. Then the Government sets a date within 12 months.

Now the most logical thing to do is include it with the general election, which will be only six months off.  But Labour may not want people voting on the anti-smacking law at the same time as they vote for a party. So they may try to hold the referendum earlier.

But this will cost significantly more money to have it as a separate election.  So Labour would be accused of wasting taxpayer money for its own electoral purposes.  The ballpark estimate is this increases the cost from around $1.5 million to $10 million.  Will the Govt has a convincing reasons for spending an extra $8.5 million rather than just have the referendum with the election?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Anti-smacking law likely to come under more heavy fire this year

This from the Gisborne Herald

Politicians look like being confronted, challenged and possibly embarrassed by the prospect of a referendum on the anti-smacking law later this year, almost certainly held in tandem with the next election.

Opponents of the controversial legislation initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford are now close to the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a citizen's initiated referenda.

Almost 5000 signatures were obtained last weekend, including 1000 at the World Cup of Motorsport event at Taupo, 720 at a "blues, brews and barbecues" event in Hastings and other tallies from A&P Shows.

The current total of almost 268,000 represents a gain of 43,000 in the past two months, suggesting no diminution of public feeling on the issue.

Principal organiser Larry Baldock told The Gisborne Herald: "We've got to keep it moving, but we're pretty confident we'll be able to see this through to a referendum."

Two petitions are being canvassed with a deadline of February 28 to obtain the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered electors and present them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The first -- "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? -- is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.

The second, in Mr Baldock's name, is "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"

As a former United Future MP Mr Baldock has been the public face of the campaign since the petitions began circulating a year ago, with strong support from volunteers, organised groups and churches.

The terms for organising and conducting Citizen's Initiated Referenda (CIR) are defined by legislation enacted by the Bolger administration in 1993, since when only two petitions have reached the point of forcing a plebiscite.

Interesting stuff . . . but even a referendum result is not binding on the Government.

_________________________________________________________________________
If you haven't signed this petition then you need to, go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html and print it sign it and send it. oh and get your mates to sign it too !!

Smack in the middle of hysteria

The Anti smacking debate is growing in Australia with the aussie Govt giving an anti smacking lobby group 2.5 million Australian dollars.


This is from the Sydney Morning Herald


At the gym one day during the holidays a mother was struggling with a shrieking toddler. The child had worked himself into hysteria and the sounds of his distress gave new meaning to "piercing" for those of us caught in the maelstrom. In the shower at first I thought I was hearing a hurricane ripping off a steel roof. Apart from prompting a flash of admiration for such energy and stamina from so small a set of lungs, the sound was deeply disturbing.

It continued for five or 10 minutes. All over the gym, from the pool to the women's changing room, concerned gym-goers tiptoed towards the source of the sound to determine the cause of distress, retreating in embarrassment when they saw the mother, sitting passively in the face of such fury.

She seemed calm, if hunkered down, not remonstrating with the child, in fact scarcely acknowledging his drama, just unemotionally absorbing the noise at close quarters. Perhaps she was deaf.

On top of the incivility of subjecting others to the noise in a not particularly child-friendly establishment, her zen-like refusal to even try to dim the din was annoying.

Everyone else was powerless to control the volume and was waiting for her to do her job, or at least to remove the child to a place where his noise would not be amplified by porcelain-tiled walls.

What was her plan? Was she so exhausted by a difficult child that she could only cope by remaining silent? Or was she merely exercising a modern form of permissive parenting?

It was obviously not what the child wanted - he needed a reaction to all his effort, though after a while he was beyond reason. It can't have been what the mother wanted, and it sure wasn't what anyone else in the gym wanted.

People wanted to reach out and help the wretched woman and her poor child, but were at a loss.

How do you tell a women her child needs a good smack?

Remembering the bossy older women who used to exasperate my friends and me when our children were younger by offering unsolicited snarky advice about our tots' perceived public misbehaviour, I hesitate before casting judgment on other mothers. We even started a joke support group, "Mothers Against Meanies" (MAM) to get the nosey-parkers to back off.

But, seriously, what happened to discipline? Little in the history of parenting has ever proven as effective as a sharp rebuke or, dare I say it, a swift smack on the bottom that acts as an instant "reboot" of a naughty child.

Some people will never agree with corporal punishment. But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't control their kids; it's just more complicated. For their own sake as much as for the children, not to mention the rest of society, they should at least try.

In the ABC-TV program The Madness of Modern Families, on Tuesday night, a British father described meal-times in his child-led household: "There's been times when we've cooked a healthy meal and plonked it down in front of the children and then seen them eat nothing and worry they're going to wake up in the night, and think it'd be easier to cook them another meal now."

That's not good parenting. It's a recipe for monsters.

This reluctance by well-meaning modern parents to enforce fair, firm, quickly administered discipline is creating havoc with the generation into which infamous Melbourne party planner Corey Delaney (aka Worthington) was born.

The 16-year-old with the pierced nipple and trademark yellow sunglasses achieved international notoriety when he threw an out-of-control party while his parents were away, attracting 500 teenagers and the police riot squad.

He doesn't seem a bad kid, and was at least trying to sweep up the mess the next day when TV cameras descended. His refusal to be intimidated by A Current Affair's school-marmish interviewer was commendable. It's his ineffectual parents, Jo and Steve Delaney, who are the problem, with their posturing TV interviews, "open letter" to newspapers and utter inability to command their son's respect.

"He's devastated," Jo Delaney told one program while her son was on a rival channel boasting about "the best party ever".

Public opinion on the internet advocates a firmer approach. The website www.slapcorey.com, has an image of the spotty, barechested teen, and a hand you can click to administer the punishment. By yesterday afternoon almost 650,000 people had indulged.

The Delaneys seem typical of a subset of laissez-faire baby-boomer parents who haven't learned to say "No".

Data from a new NSW Government parent helpline shows a crisis in parental confidence, with 20 per cent of calls from parents tearing out their hair about how to discipline their unruly offspring. And a study last year from the Vanderbilt Medical Centre in Tennessee found a third of parents believe their discipline methods are "never" or only "sometimes effective".

Perhaps working parents try to outsource discipline and training of their children to nannies and other carers in the mistaken hope that family time will be calm. Perhaps step-parents are reluctant to mete out discipline, concerned the child will not recognise their authority.

Meanwhile the anti-smacking lobby is flexing its muscles, with the Australian Childhood Foundation pushing for a national law, following New Zealand, to prevent parents using corporal punishment. The Federal Government last year even gave them $2.5 million to fund a campaign warning parents not to smack.

The idea is that banning smacking in the home reduces violence in society. But common sense and the facts say the opposite, that lax parenting leads to more aggressive children.

The Norwegian bullying expert and psychology professor Dan Olweus has shown that "overly permissive parenting" actually creates bullies. No one wants to go back to an era in which children were seen and not heard, or belted when they were bad. There is plenty to admire about today's parents, who are involved and interested in their children's lives, and treat them with respect.

But there is a sensible middle ground, in which a firm "No", even the odd smack, or raised voice, does not make you a bad parent. At the very least, if permissive parents want to give their misbehaving children free rein, could they please do it in the privacy of their own homes. Preferably with soundproofing.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out.

Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out.

This from the NZ Herald

A South Auckland foster care group says a quarter of its foster parents have quit because of the "anti-smacking" law passed last year.

South Auckland Caregivers Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed caregivers to use reasonable force to "correct" children, had made a chronic shortage worse.

"A quarter of our members have left because of section 59. I could rattle off about 10 in South Auckland. I know of many, many caregivers who have been longstanding caregivers but won't do caregiving any more. It's too dangerous.

"These kids are really hard. They just don't care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?"

Child, Youth and Family Services has faced mounting problems finding foster parents in recent years, as the number of children in care has grown by 18 per cent in the past five years to 5049, while the number of single-income families with one parent available at home for caregiving has shrunk.

However, other foster care groups said the smacking law was not a factor for their members.

Both Carolyn Hill, who chairs the national Family and Foster Care Federation, and Foster Care Auckland chairman Byron Perkins said they had not heard of any caregiver leaving because of the law change.

"People are leaving because they are dissatisfied with CYFS," Mr Perkins said. "It comes down to the whole area of professionalism and payments because both couples have to go to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage."

A CYFS survey published in November found that 71 per cent of its mainly-female primary caregivers now work outside the home - 20 per cent fulltime and 51 per cent part-time. Although 80 per cent of its mainly-male secondary caregivers have paid work, most are low-paid. Only 46 per cent earn more than $35,000 a year.

Three-quarters said the foster care allowance of $124 to $174 a week per child depending on the child's age did not cover all their costs such as transporting the children to school and other activities.

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren convener Di Vivian said many grandparents were "frightened" by the new law, but she did not know of any who had given up caring for their grandchildren because of it.

A CYFS spokeswoman said the repeal of section 59 made no difference to the service's long-standing policy against any "physical discipline".

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Australian Anti-Smacking Campaign

From the Daily Telegraph, Australia - 19 Jan 08

...Data from the new Parent Line shows discipline far outranks other concerns about children, with nearly 20 per cent of calls from mums or dads begging for advice on how to handle their toddler or troubled teen.

Experts [1] say mixed messages are leaving parents uncertain how to punish their children in a politically correct age when smacking is considered wrong. [2]

``Parents feel smacking doesn't work [3] and prefer not to use physical punishment, but are not sure what to put in its place,'' said Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF), which is behind a push for a national anti-smacking law.

``We need to set a community standard that, under law, children can't be hurt [4] that is the kid of law we think should be introduced that would clarify it for parents,'' Mr Tucci said...

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

Comments
1. So-called "experts" are not the people to turn to for advice on raising children.

2.
Who says smacking is wrong? - I can absolutely guarantee you that the attitude to smacking in Australia will be very close to that of New Zealand.  In New Zealand, when the Government pushed through the anti-democratic and draconian Anti-Smacking bill, 83% of the population were opposed to the law change.

3.
Well of course some parents feel that smacking doesn't work, however Joe Tucci is grossly misrepresenting the truth here.

4.
All children get hurt from time to time as they grow up.  Whether if it's knocking their head on the side of the dresser, or getting a quick slap on the bottom for something they've done wrong.

In Summary,
These "anti-smacking" lobbyists consistently ignore the rights of the majority of the population.  They push ahead with their agenda for social change - as Sue Bradford (introduced the Anti-Smacking bill to NZ Parliament) says "We've got to change this culture of violence".  They twist words and use emotive language to strengthen their argument, for instance, describing a loving smack as a beating.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Unity For Liberty's response to police report on smacking cases

This is Unity For Liberty's response to the police report on smacking which came out last year.
____________________________________________

Please do not be fooled by the recent Police review and the media. It has been reported that the court has not been inundated with cases so the law is working. This is not the full story.
Firstly, they claim there has only been 15 investigations, but we are almost averaging one story a week from one table. The report also goes on to say that ?an absence of a notification on a Police file does not necessarily mean that no notification was made.?

I was speaking to a prominent Party leader's secretary, she made this comment "The police are required to investigate all reports", this is a classic case of "If we ask the wrong questions we will arrive at the wrong answer". Read on

There is a very disturbing trend that is developing in this country, this law, rather than being tested in the courts of the land, appears that it is being enforced by fear and intimidation from our Police Force. Recently a Grandmother was threatened with arrest just for restraining a 2 yr old from running on the road. The Officer made it very clear "I will let you off this time but next time I will arrest you". But there's more, this will test the above Police review figures. When the officer moved on, another woman (unsure if she was a mum or gran) come up and said, "They aren't kidding, they escorted me to the Police Station and interviewed me for the same thing last week."

We have since been made aware of more similar stories, they have been forwarded to Bob McCoskrie at Family First, please forward all stories to Bob, for him protection of the victim is more important than the story, he is a trusted person.

The secretary above, like the rest of us, assumed the police will only be investigating reported cases, who would have thought they themselves would become proactive and start intimidating grandmothers, and this was INCONSEQUENTIAL.

A solo mum, also a New Zealand citizen, who has not broken any law, the police chose to investigate her history through social services and then chose to challenge her parenting skills. She then went to complain to her local MP about her treatment, only to receive a phone call from the Police District Commander, "don't bother wasting the MP's time".

We pay out taxes to be protected by our police, now innocent New Zealanders are being attacked.

Unity for Liberty will be presenting our own review assessed from the trail of devastation that is being left behind from this Bad Law.

Let's collect these signatures and keep the politicians honest,

_______________________________________________
Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz to print of the petition form, sign it and send it to ,

C/o CIR
P.O. Box 9228
Greerton, Tauranga

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Don't Vote Labour: the poem

Christchurch marched in driving rain,
Three thousand protests were in vain,
"Protect parental rights!", they cried.
"We're protecting children", Labour lied.

"Freedom of Speech", Labour said,
They're trying to get our votes instead.
"Make them pay!" they declared.
With Mugabe they're compared.

"They've got too much freedom", Labour thinks,
"What else can we ban? Can't ban the drinks,
Helen didn't sleep because of the show,
So fireworks are the next to go!"

That's right Labour! We don't mind
We know you're trying to be kind,
Get rid of all our fireworks nights,
Take our freedom, ignore our rights.

"Close down SIT? No problems at all,
Old Tim Shadbolt's a bit of a fool.
Raise the taxes! Increase the rates!
We know that's what our country hates."

Let Labour in again? It's not wise,
They're trying to control our lives.
The only thing that can be done,
Is get them out and have some fun.

- by a free-thinking 16 year old who refuses to obey the Electoral Finance Act and put her name and address on this "Election Advertisment"

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father

Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys - Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.

This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.

As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike - and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.

Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad's face, and heard him say "wait Seth, we have to look after Zach". Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.

An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.

One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad's head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?...

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

Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):

Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be "marched down to the slammer."

Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.

from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz

Cindy Kiro, "Children's Commissioner":

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son's ear.

"The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly."

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz

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

Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro's role as "children's commissioner" was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.

Jimmy Mason:

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

"[The police officers] didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater. There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

from http://www.stuff.co.nz

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

Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.

Father warned for disciplining boy, 3

By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008

A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son's ear in public as a reprimand.

Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.

The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.

"Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn't realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness," Mason said.

"So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one," Mason said.

A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.

"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said.

"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."

Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.

"When I say 'stop' to the kids they have got to stop," he said. "I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.

"They didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."

In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.

"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater.

"There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."

He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.

Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.

"It says every parent is justified in using force if it's reasonable in the circumstances," he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was "inconsequential" and not in the public interest to prosecute.

Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.

"It just seems totally over the top," he said. "That's the problem with this law, it's lost the common-sense element. It's a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused."

A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be "inconsequential" and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Teenager Collecting Signatures Against Bradford Law Assaulted

Press Release - Unity for Liberty - 4 January 2008

Unity for Liberty leader, Craig Hill, is stunned with the behavior of an
opponent to the petition against the Sue Bradford anti-smacking law.

Mr Hill's 18 year old daughter was pushed to the ground by a woman who
was trying to destroy the petition forms that had been signed at a
shopping centre in Pukekohe this afternoon.

An assault complaint has been laid to the Police.

"It seems ironic that people who claim they are against abuse have no
problems assaulting a teenage girl," says Mr Hill. "They seem unable to
differentiate the difference between a smack and child abuse, and they
also have no problem using unreasonable force on other people."

Unity for Liberty has collectors throughout NZ collecting signatures
demanding a Referendum against Bradford's anti-smacking bill and
demanding that the politicians tackle the real causes of child abuse.

Over 250,000 signatures have been collected already, and Mr Hill's
daughter has been collecting signatures every weekend over the past 5
months and during the holiday period.

Click here for the News report on this case

Click here for comments from the nzconservative blog

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

250,000 Signatures Collected

"This is a message to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and all those who thought they could ignore good decent Mum’s and Dad’s in this country who are trying to do their best with the most important job in the world. No Helen, it’s not being Prime Minister, it is raising good kids."

"The referendum is coming which will allow every New Zealander to have their say. If the PM, Sue Bradford and all the MP’s who supported it had any respect for democracy they would have called for the referendum themselves!"

Click here for the Press Release from Larry Baldock

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Larry Baldock & Bradford on Radio NZ

Larry comments on the false "3 Month Review" issued by the Police recently. Bradford attempts to defend the flawed piece of legislation with her name on it. Larry brings up the salient question "if there have been no prosecutions - then what is the point of the law?"

The below clip is six minutes long and well worth a listen.

Right click here and choose "save" to download the MP3 file

Audio from: www.radionz.co.nz

Friday, December 21, 2007

Spain quick to follow NZ on anti-parental-authority law

This from www.abc.net.au | 21 Dec 07

The Spanish Congress has passed a bill that bans parents from smacking their children.

Spanish law had allowed parents to 'reasonably and moderately correct their children'.

But the Socialist government has voted to delete that clause in order to remove any ambiguity.

The conservative opposition party voted against the change on the grounds that it would leave parents powerless to discipline their children.

Of Europe's 46 member states, 16 have already banned smacking at school and in the home.

Police Report out on "anti-smacking" law

The long awaited police review of the "anti-smacking" law is out.

There has been a slight increase in smacking cases.

Here is their graph.

Table 1




Events

Volume before Amendment

Volume after Amendment

Increase in volume of events

"Smacking"

3

3

0

"Minor acts of physical discipline"

10

12

2

Other child assault

82

96

14

Total

95

111

16

_________________________________________________________

Please read the report here http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/section-59-activity-review/

Comment to come later.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Smacking referendum bid nears goal

Great to finally see the media doing it's job, reporting on the massive Nation-wide effort of people collecting signatures on the petition.

Manawatu Standard | Saturday, 15 December 2007

More than 240,000 people have signed a petition calling for anti-smacking legislation to be repealed. A steady flow of people added their names to the list in Palmerston North yesterday.

Future New Zealand political party co- leader Larry Baldock and his wife Barbara set up a stand near The Plaza about 11.15am.

By 3.30pm they had more than 240 extra signatures.

The petition needs 300,000 signatures by March 1 if the issue is to be voted on at the next general election in 2008, Mr Baldock said.

The campaign lost momentum after Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial child discipline bill, which outlaws physical punishment, passed into law last winter.

However, Mr Baldock said petition volunteers' spirits have picked up and they have their sights set on the 300,000 target to force a non-binding citizens' initiated referendum.

"We're not interested in trying to convince people," Mr Baldock said yesterday.

"Most people are upset - they didn't want [the law], but [Parliament] went ahead and did it anyway."

The law wastes police resources and makes good parents nervous, Mr Baldock said.

Palmerston North man Rhys Rossiter said he signed the petition because the law "criminalises parents for doing what they do".

The law also encourages people to nark on parents who discipline their children, he said.

"There's a difference between beating a kid and disciplining a kid."

The law has done nothing to stop child abuse, he said.

New Zealand has the third highest rate among developed nations of child deaths due to maltreatment. On average our adults kill 1.2 children per 100,000 each year.

The petition has two questions:

  • Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
  • Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?