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.

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

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

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

Anti-Smacking Bill hits California

This from www.mensnewsdaily.com April 4, 2008

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.

Hypocrisy from Peter Dunne

Hypocrisy Again From Mr Dunne

Peter Dunne is in trouble after saying that the people should decide in a referendum on MMP. This is very inconsistent as he would hate to see a referendum on the "anti-smacking" law.

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.

Presentation of Petition for Referendum

The Cartoon they didn't publish...

click for a larger version

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.

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.

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

Huge Opposition to Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed

Wednesday, 20 February 2008, 9:34 am
Press Release: Family First Lobby

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Click here to read the full article at the Daily Mail - 30/01/08

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...

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 29^th 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.