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.