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.

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

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"

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

Petition calls for repeal of Bradford's Bill

www.times-age.co.nz | 14.12.2007 | By Gerald Ford

Opponents of Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial "anti-smacking bill" enacted this year were collecting signatures in Masterton yesterday on a petition calling for its repeal.

Two petitions were presented, calling for referenda on 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?

Larry Baldock, the former United Future MP, who is presenting the second petition, said yesterday at 240,000 they were close to the 300,000 needed for a referendum...

Click here to read the rest of the article

Latest study unreliable

www.stuff.co.nz | Friday, 14 December 2007 reports...

"Three out of four young parents physically discipline their children - and one in eight have seriously assaulted them - a Christchurch study reveals."

"The study, completed before smacking was outlawed, asked 155 parents under 25 how they acted towards their children in the previous 12 months, taking into account punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking.

Researchers concluded the use of child physical punishment was likely to be common among young parents and up to 12 per cent engaged in "harsh or abusive treatment".

Lead researcher Canterbury University Associate Professor Lianne Woodward said social and family background had a big influence on the parents' use of physical punishment..."
Click here to read the rest of the article

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

155 parents were surveyed says the Newspaper report. This "research" cannot be taken seriously, as it cannot posssibly be representative of the population of Christchurch, let-alone the rest of New Zealand. Look how fast Kiro is to jump at it and say "see, we've got to change". The study was done prior to the bill passing into law, so quite apart from anything else, the results are irrelevant to today.

12% of the parents surveyed apparently admitted to having beaten their children up at some stage. What demographic was surveyed? It seems pretty improbable that anyone would admit in a survey to having beaten up a child.

"punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking." - This is well put, it clearly seperates smacking from abuse. Smacking is classified as punishment while burning and choking are said to be assult. It's pretty obvious that these are assult. However we've got Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro and their colleagues screaming out bloody murder, claiming that a parent who cares enough about their child to give him/her a loving smack now and then is a heartless child-abuser.

Over-all, the statistic that 75% of young parents smack their children comes as no surprise. The finding that 12% of young parents abuse their children however, is rubbish. We know for a fact that child-abusers form a very small percentage of our population.

77pc of parents smack - study

According to a new study, 77% of parents smack their children

This from the NZ Herald
_________________________________________________

As many as 77 per cent of parents aged 25 in a study said they had smacked children, with 12 per cent admitting they severely assaulted a child in the past year.

The data was gathered as part of a Christchurch Health and Development Study and reported in the latest New Zealand Medical Journal. "The use of physical punishment and more severe forms of physical assault/abuse are relatively common among contemporary young parents," the study found.

A separate study in the journal also found smacking was widespread in the Pacific Island community, and hitting children with objects was common.

French parents back smacking

from www.thehindu.com

Most French children are used to the odd spank from their parents, and many think there is nothing wrong with that, a new survey suggests. An Internet poll by the Paris-based Union of Families in Europe (UFE), an organisation which defends families' rights in France, shows that 65 per cent of children in France think la fessee — French for a smack on the bottom — is a normal part of their upbringing, with more than half thinking they de serve it.

Spanking is certainly central in a French education if the survey is anything to go by. More than 95 per cent of the 2,000 grandparents, parents, and children polled said they had been spanked at some point in their lives.

A nationwide poll carried out nearly 10 years ago revealed that more than 85 per cent of French parents spanked their children compared with 87 per cent in the new survey. While spanking may still be popular in France, other forms of punishment, such as a slap on the cheek or a kick are rarely used and are considered dangerous by many parents, the survey showed.

Original Section 59 Does Its Job

Family First Media Release - 7 December 2007

Family First is welcoming the conviction of two foster parents who were today found guilty of assaulting two sisters in their care, including hitting one in the face with a baseball bat.

"Despite the original section 59 being available as a possible defence to the couple, it has not protected them in any way, and neither should it have," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The actions of these foster parents were not reasonable – they were simply abusive."

"This case shows that when applied correctly, abusive parents could not use section 59 to their advantage. That was the original design of the law, and it was not the law itself that was at fault – it was simply its application in a couple of high profile cases. It has done its job perfectly in this case."

"But what we have now is confusing to parents, is targeting good and non-abusive parents with malicious and unwarranted complaints, has distracted police and CYF resources from at-risk families, and has done nothing to stem the flow of our unacceptable child abuse rates."

"The law change has failed to target drug and alcohol fuelled abuse or domestic violence, family breakdown or dysfunction, teenage parenting needs, and poverty and stress issues," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Until we resource and support frontline organisations like Plunket and other local community organisations working with at-risk families, provide midwives and appropriate postnatal care (especially to first-time and teen mothers), and strengthen struggling families with appropriate counseling and relationship support, no amount of tinkering with section 59 will achieve anything."

"But 83% of NZ'ers already know that."

11 year old calls the cops on his father.

Another case of the "anti-smacking" law pulling apart families.

This is from stuff.co.nz . My comments in italics.
_____________________________________________________

A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region's first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.

Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent's right to use "reasonable force" when discipling a child.

The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.

Mr Flynn, who has four children, told the Nelson Mail his son called the police two weeks ago after he hit the boy. (we have said all along that kids would be calling the cops on their parents)

Mr Flynn disputes the police summary of facts. He estimated that he hit his son five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a "tiny issue" that blew up.

While the police visited him at home to talk to him, they did not take any action at that stage, he said.

"But I made it quite clear to the cop that if it was needed again, I would smack."

Mr Flynn said that about a week later, he "clipped" his son around the face.

Several days later, he was at home cooking dinner when the police arrived and he was arrested.

Mr Flynn said he wanted to speak out about his case because he thought he would not have been charged under the old law.

"I believe very strongly in smacking as a form of discipline. I'm a Christian, and believe it's what I've been commanded to do.

"I'm not going to lay down and take it. I'm going to kick and scream to the very end."

He said he only occasionally used the wooden spoon, when his son's behaviour was particularly bad.

He believed that passages in the Bible gave him the right to use the spoon, or "rod".

"Parents must have the right to correct their children and give them a good whack if that's what they need. (yes parents need the right to correct their children)

"All this law is doing is making criminals out of good parents. I'm not afraid to say `I smack my kids'." (that's dead right)

He believed that smacking was effective because it was an immediate form of discipline. (again very true)

"We have to have it there, because the kids just know they can get away with anything if it isn't there as a punishment.

"I don't beat my kids. I don't thrash them.

"This new law is going to destroy families. It's already started."

Mr Flynn, who is separated from his wife, said his son had been living with him under an informal arrangement until he appeared in court on Tuesday.

Mr Flynn was granted bail but refused to sign the bail bond because of a condition that he not contact his son. He said he was handcuffed, searched and spent several hours in a holding cell before being released. He intends to appeal the bail condition, and is due back in court on January 18.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk declined to comment on the prosecution, other than to say it had always been illegal for a parent to assault a child.

A 33-year-old Masterton man recently became the first parent convicted under the new legislation. Last month, he was sentenced to nine months' supervision and counselling for grabbing his son and smacking him three times.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who campaigned for the legislation, said the law had changed to put the rights of a child to be free of violence before the rights of the parent.

"What the law is about is protecting babies, children and young people from violence."

Ms Bradford said there were many alternatives to hitting children.

"It's a huge fallacy to think that beating them is helping them. It's hurting and humiliating them." (the father said that he did not beat his kids. )

______________________________________________

section 59 blog will keep you up to date on this latest case.

It’s OK to Smack – American College of Pediatricians

This is a highly significant article. Must read.

Family First Media Release | 4 December 2007 | click here for article

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP), a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialise in the care of infants, children, and adolescents has released a position statement on the smacking of children.

“This research backs up the argument put forward by Family First and other pro-family groups against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

“The ACP reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concluded that disciplinary smacking by parents can be effective when properly used. They say that the evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan when not relied upon solely to control their child’s behaviour.”

“They say that smacking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed.”

The ACP has published a one page handout for parents titled “Guidelines for Parental Use of Disciplinary Spanking.” This can be viewed [by clicking here]

They have also published an extensive review of the scientific literature on smacking.
Family First is welcoming this balanced, objective and thorough research on the issue of smacking by professionals.

“It flies in the face of the blind ideology peddled by the UN, politicians, Children’s Commissioner, and child welfare agencies who have failed to identify and deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First continues to call on both the government and other political parties to change the current law on smacking so that parents who use the types of smacking recommended by the ACP are not committing a criminal act, and not be at the mercy of police discretion or unwarranted CYF investigation.

Kerre Woodham "3 smacks case"

According to Kerre Woodham of the NZ Herald, the case of the father being convicted for smacking his child 3 times on the bottom is not the sort of case to give the National Party a reason to turn back the clock on the repeal of S59. We agree with her on this, however we would say that increasingly, cases are going to start coming in where good parents are in fact prosectuted for giving their child a light, loving smack.

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

It's amazing how many people are defending the actions of a Masterton father who grabbed his child so roughly he bruised him, before smacking him three times. The man, whose identity has been suppressed to protect the identity of his child, pleaded guilty to assault in the Masterton District Court and was sentenced to nine months' supervision and ordered to attend an anger management course.

The conviction has generated howls of protest from the various lobby groups who fought passionately against the anti-smacking bill - here, they say, is in example of a good, honest dad trying to discipline his child and he's been persecuted by a liberal nanny state. Other groups have demanded that National hold true to its promise that if one good parent is prosecuted for smacking their child then National would repeal Sue Bradford's law.

Some people seem to have a very generous interpretation of what it means to be a good parent. If I'd handled my child so roughly she bruised, I would have been appalled.

However, you should have heard the people ringing talkback on Thursday night, suggesting that the boy probably bruised easily. Or that the woman was a vindictive cow looking to make trouble for her husband. Or that the child had committed such a heinous act, any father was justified in acting that way.

A number of callers were incredibly quick to blame everyone but the man himself for the situation he found himself in. If so many people think it's fine and perfectly reasonable to bruise a child, it makes me think this legislation is more necessary than I initially thought. Certainly the National Party doesn't think this Masterton man is a poster boy for parenthood.

As Judith Collins says, under the amendment that Chester Borrows proposed to the anti-smacking legislation, the man would still have been charged because he'd left bruises on his boy. National stands by its promise that the party will repeal the law if it is government and if a parent is prosecuted for smacking their child with an open palm. But given that the mother was so concerned she took photos of the bruising and that the man himself pleaded guilty to assault, this case isn't going to be the one that helps to turn back the clock.

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

I have not got the full details of this case so I am only getting second hand information through the media. The National party is taking a cautious approach and rightly so, to this because of the situation surrounding the case and that the Father has had previous trouble with the police.

But I do believe that the National party should take some leadership on this issue and at least say that they will repeal the law back to Chester Borrows proposed amendment.

Remember up to 83% of New Zealanders opposed this law, that should be a mandate for change.

Herald wrong on Anti-Smacking Law conclusions

The below article appeared in The Herald Editorial, Sunday 25 November 07. All comments in bold are my own. I will just mention here that I am most impressed with The Herald's stand agains the Electoral Finance Bill.

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

The first conviction under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 has probably realised the worst fear of those who opposed it: that, far from bringing an end to orderly family life as we know it, the law would be applied with wisdom and common sense and people would be stopped doing something they ought not do...

Incorrect. The recent case says nothing by itself. It is foolishness to look at one case and come to a conclusion on the workability of the new Anti-Smacking law. The Government, Police and CYFS have been very quiet in the months following the bill's passing into law. However let us give it one, or two years and we will begin to see the Nanny State horror of Sweden being imposed upon New Zealand families.

...The act, before it was passed in May, was better known as "Sue Bradford's Anti-smacking Bill". But its official name is a better one because it underlines the real intent: in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act,

Incorrect. The bill was labelled by Sue Bradford herself as an "Anti-Smacking bill".

...it removed the protection available to parents - and to no one else - against a charge of assault...

Incorrect. Section (1) of the original law read:
"Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."

...Opponents of the law predicted many dire consequences: that busybodies would tell on their neighbours and police would have no choice but to prosecute; that CYFS would be swamped with notifications relating to loving parents who gave a toddler a tap; that decent Mums and Dads would find the wrathful state marching through their living rooms.

But what has come to pass is precisely what Bradford had hoped, intended and predicted: Ministry of Social Development figures show no increase in numbers of notifications that can be related back to the passage of the bill (by contrast, an increase in awareness prompted by the "It's Not OK" publicity about family violence has resulted in a rise in reporting). Meanwhile police, following up neighbour reports of parents smacking their children, have determined that no assault has occurred.

Whether or not parents are prosecuted for smacking their children is almost beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal for parents to smack their children for the purpose of correction. This places families at the mercy of the State. This new law gives more power to CYFS to intervene in cases where good parents have smacked their children - not beaten them.

In some cases, these neighbour reports may have been petty or spiteful, or even the actions of people trying (and failing) to highlight what they saw as bad law. But, as child protection groups cogently argue, no harm was done: the reported behaviour might have been the tip of an abuse iceberg. Those who speak of trauma and insecurity caused to good families might want to measure it against the trauma and insecurity experienced by James Whakaruru and Delcelia Witika, among others.

Bob McCoskrie of Family First wants the National Party to change the smacking law so that good parents are not "criminalised for lightly smacking their children". But the plain evidence is that this is not happening. Certainly it is not what happened in the case of the Masterton man convicted this week. He smacked his son three times on the backside for misbehaving at school, in the process manhandling the boy sufficiently to leave bruises on his shoulder. He himself admitted that he had over-reacted and lost his temper - and he has agreed to undergo anger-management counselling for which the state will pay.

It is hard to imagine a better outcome - or a plainer demonstration of the law working as it should. Those who see here the spectre of the state intruding into private lives cannot avoid admitting that they would rather see the state clean up after a child is killed. That is the logical extension of a social and legal environment in which it is all right for parents to beat children.

Even the New Zealand Herald falls into the trap of using emotive terms to push a point. No, it was not "all right for parents to beat children" under the old law. Reasonable force is not the same as a beating.

The man's partner has commented pointedly that the young boy concerned is "playing on" his father's conviction. It is hard to imagine such smugness surviving a couple of nights without television or something similar, but in any case, as the judge said, kids can be challenging and adults have to behave responsibly if they want their children to.

This law may have been unpopular but evidence of the widely predicted unintended consequences is pitifully thin. In less than a generation, we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to pass it.

"We" did not pass this law. Our Parliament passed it against the will of approximately 83% of us. The majority of New Zealanders are still unhappy with the new law.