Poland: Hitting children is bad, Smacking is not

from www.polskieradio.pl 02/06/2008

The majority of Poles are in favour of a legal ban on hitting children, but at the same time they don't see anything wrong in an occasional smack, a poll published in Rzeczpospolita reveals.

The daily writes that the shocking news of child abuse that have recently shaken Polish public opinion and the government's declarations that spanking children will be prohibited, have little influence over parents' convictions. The daily reminds that in 1990 the Council of Europe demanded that Poland introduce relevant regulations to Polish law.

The Polish National Health Fund is to be abolished, Gazeta Prawna informs. The government wants to divide the central institution into several regional organisations. The decentralisation of the Fund is to end in introducing private health insurance institutions in 2012. In that way, as the Health Minister explains, the health care market will become more competitive as the patients will be able to choose were to pay their money for treatments.

Nasz Dziennik writes that the new Czech health care law is likely to cause Polish-Czech abortion tourism. The new regulations in the Czech Republic provide for almost unlimited access to the procedure of abortion for all foreign women. According to the daily, this situation will weaken the very strict Polish anti-abortion law, as the Polish women will be able to legally end pregnancies in the neighbouring country.

Can't find the poll that this information has been taken from - but the Poles have it right, "hitting and smacking are two different things entirely".

Poland: "Hitting children is bad,Smacking is not"

from www.polskieradio.pl 02/06/2008

The majority of Poles are in favour of a legal ban on hitting children, but at the same time they don't see anything wrong in an occasional smack, a poll published in Rzeczpospolita reveals.

The daily writes that the shocking news of child abuse that have recently shaken Polish public opinion and the government's declarations that spanking children will be prohibited, have little influence over parents' convictions. The daily reminds that in 1990 the Council of Europe demanded that Poland introduce relevant regulations to Polish law.

The Polish National Health Fund is to be abolished, Gazeta Prawna informs. The government wants to divide the central institution into several regional organisations. The decentralisation of the Fund is to end in introducing private health insurance institutions in 2012. In that way, as the Health Minister explains, the health care market will become more competitive as the patients will be able to choose were to pay their money for treatments.

Nasz Dziennik writes that the new Czech health care law is likely to cause Polish-Czech abortion tourism. The new regulations in the Czech Republic provide for almost unlimited access to the procedure of abortion for all foreign women. According to the daily, this situation will weaken the very strict Polish anti-abortion law, as the Polish women will be able to legally end pregnancies in the neighbouring country.

Can't find the poll that this information has been taken from - but the Poles have it right, "hitting and smacking are two different things entirely".

TVNZ poll shows Majority of Kiwis Still Opposed to Anti-Smacking-Law

Update - 4 June 08: Outcome of poll

" Do you think the anti-smacking law should stay?"
Yes: 12%
No: 85%
Click here to view the poll results

---

TVNZ is currently running a poll on their website, asking

" Do you think the anti-smacking law should stay?"

Currently 17% of voters think that the law should stay - and 79% think that the law should not stay. This has been my experience when out on the street collecting signatures for the petition asking "should a smack be a criminal offence". 90% or more of those I speak to are opposed to the law, and more than happy to sign the petition.

LET'S BRING THIS PUPPY HOME

2 WEEKS TO GO - TO MAKE THEM LISTEN

The GOOD NEWS is that in 2 weeks we won't be sending you any more emails about collecting signatures for the petition on the anti-smacking legislation. Yay!!!!

The NOT SO GOOD NEWS is that the deadline to collect the remaining number of signatures to absolutely ensure that the Referendum happens is in 2 weeks .

Our target is 370,000 signatures to ensure that there are more than enough signatures to survive however tough the 'audit process' is. ( just over 12,000 to collect )

And remember - 390,000 would match the number in the film Amazing Grace where William Wilberforce rolled out the petition in the House of Commons and shouted, “No matter how loud you shout you will not drown out the voice of the people!”

Could I encourage you to simply
1. print out the petition form CLICK HERE
2. carry with you over the weekend and next week
3. and simply check with people you socialise with whether they would like to sign the petition. You'll be surprised how many people have wanted to but simply didn't have the opportunity!

Thanks for your efforts - and have a great 'long weekend'!

Family First Team

The Press Finds Child Abuse Amusing

Bring back Garrick Tremain. Moreu is a...

I don't read the Press - but was informed of the political cartoon for today. I feel sickened by it. Still, it raises the profile of the petition, and gets people talking - and that is good.

"NZ Herald editorial reeks of arrogance!" Kiwi Party Press Release

Press Release, The Kiwi Party, May 28,2008

Responding to the NZ Herald editorial this morning, Petition organiser & Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said the author's opinion would change rapidly if they were a parent and had just received a visit from the Police or CYFS.

"The author is right about one thing and one thing only. The law change has made no difference to the awful rates of child abuse it was intended to address. When it comes to the 48% of good parent's in the survey that have admitted to still occasionally smacking their children it is not true to say it has been business as usual. We have heard tens of thousands of Kiwi Parents at our petition tables express that they now operate in a climate of fear. That is what this law change has done and the amendment of John Key has done nothing much to alleviate that.
The NZ Herald shows an enormous contradiction in their attitude when they railed against the EFA and said it had to be repealed, but are prepared to allow the climate of fear to prevail over the majority of good Mums and Dads in this country with a do nothing about it attitude.

By publishing the true and accurate accounts of those affected by this law, Bob McCoskrie at Family First has done everyone in this country a service. That is hardly alarmism. There have been many other stories identified but because of the fear of further consequences some have not wanted to publicly tell their stories.

The arrogance and superior attitude behind the editorial statement "there are, as every sensible parent knows, better ways to correct bad behaviour, but if parents sometimes use more primitive means the law can be reasonable," makes my blood boil. For thousands of years loving hard working parents have raised healthy well balanced respectful kids by using appropriate physical discipline and this journalist, with a stroke of their pen, feels so enlightened in our modern world to be able to pass judgement upon them by calling their parenting primitive.  That is appalling!
What will definitely create a primitive society and return to us the barbarianism of the past, is the failure to properly discipline children and teach them respect for authority.

If the author is worried about the debate being stirred up all over again after the election and the referendum I would put their mind at rest. If the Kiwi Party is in a position to exercise influence over a National led government the Bradford Act will be gone by lunchtime. No drawn out select committee with submissions and debates. One session of urgency is all it will take, and good parents will be able to get on with the most important job in this country, that of raising good kids, without having to look over their shoulder all the time to see what liberal do-gooder might be watching and waiting to dobb them in.

Finally I have to say how disappointing it was to see that the author was unwilling to put their name to their opinion piece. More than 350,000 Kiwis have been concerned enough about the Bradford anti-smacking law that they have placed their name to the petition in broad daylight. Some of them, like police, social workers and Plunket employees have done so while expressing a concern that there have been veiled suggestions that they should not be doing so.

We undermine our freedom when we lack the courage to put our name to our convictions," said Mr Baldock.

Herald Launches Attack on Democracy

The headline for the editorial in the NZ Herald today reads "Spare us a smacking referendum".  The story is utterly biased in favour of the minority of Kiwis who support the law, and as Bob McCoskrie of Family First says, "an extraordinary attack on Family First NZ and signatories to the petition demanding a Referendum on the anti-smacking law."  Below are some excerpts from the poorly-researched story, with my comments in bold.

Family First, a group that campaigns for the right to smack, has commissioned a survey that finds 48 per cent of parents of children under 12 have given them a smack in the year since the law was changed. Spokesman Bob McCoskrie said he was surprised to find so many admitting they flouted the law. It indicated "just how far out of step with reality this law is", he said.

It indicates nothing of the kind. It shows that, contrary to the alarmism of Family First, the removal of the parental defence to assault has not deterred reasonable practice. Nearly half the 1018 parents surveyed still resort to a smack on occasions. Had the police enforced the new law with the rigour that Family First feared, parents would not be as relaxed about it as they plainly are.

1. The anonymous author of the article acuses Family First of alarmism, when in fact they are simply speaking up for the majority (83%) of Kiwis who oppose the new law.

2. They are also incorrect when they claim that "Nearly half the 1018 parents surveyed still resort to a smack on occasions."  Not everyone who was surveyed would necessarily tell the researcher over the phone if they were actually using an occasional smack in the discipline of their children.

3. No, the police have not enforced the new law with rigour.  Yet.  But why do you continue to ignore the fact that this bad law makes good parents criminals under the law?  With the law now in place, it opens up the door for the police to step up the rigour with which they apply it.

Why, then, is Mr McCoskrie's group unable to let this unpleasant subject rest? Why is a petition circulating to put the issue to a referendum that could be held with the general election this year? The public must be heartily sick of this non-issue. Smacking children is simply not worth further debate. There are, as every sensible parent knows, better ways to correct bad behaviour, but if parents sometimes use more primitive means the law can be reasonable.

I think the Herald must have pulled a high-school kid off the street to write this article.  Why is the petition circulating? - because 357,000 Kiwis have already signed it, and we are going to honour them - and the rest of New Zealand by holding a referendum at which all of us can vote on the issue.  Yes, the public is sick of this issue - but is that any reason to ignore it?  The public is sick of a Government who consistently ignores them, and they want this bad law to be repealled.  What does the Herlad mean by "the law can be reasonable"?

Now, having changed the law, there is no more reason to meddle with it than there was the first time. The law has sent the message that violence is not the ideal way to correct children but that police have a discretion they can exercise with common sense.

The police have always had a discretion which they can exercise with common sense.

Ms Bradford notes that a similar survey taken just after her bill was passed last year found 78 per cent of parents saying they would smack their children if they thought it reasonable to do so. If only 48 per cent have done so a year on, quite a number must have changed their minds about what is reasonable or necessary.

No.  48% of parents with children under the age of 12.  They are here comparing two unrelated statistics which is extremely ametuer.  A quote from Family First's press release on the research states:

"85% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (up from 82% last year)."

Click here to read the full editorial (28 May 2008)

Kiwi Party pledge anti-smacking law will be gone by Lunchtime

Monday, 26 May 2008, 9:56 am
Press Release: The Kiwi Party

CIR Petition organiser and Kiwi Party Leader Larry Baldock said the latest poll commissioned by Family First and revealed in the NZ Herald today, continues to dash the hopes of anti-smacking law supporters that good Kiwi Mums and Dad's are ever going to accept the Governments interference in their parental authority.

"Rather than "moving on and getting over it" as claimed by Sue Bradford and Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro, kiwi parents and prospective parents are strengthening their resolve to see the act repealed," he said.

The survey ssked if they thought the new law was likely to help reduce child abuse, 79 per cent said it was not at all likely. This figure was up from 77 per cent last year.
85 per cent of those polled - up from 82 per cent a year ago - agreed the new law should be changed to state that parents who gave their children a smack that was reasonable and for the purpose of correction were not breaking the law

The petition campaigners have collected 355,000 signatures on their way to a target of at least 370,000 to ensure that a referendum is held. Plans are currently under way for a major collection drive across the nation from Queens Birthday weekend through to mid June to finish the task.

"Then all that remains to be done is for a majority of New Zealanders to reclaim their democracy by saying no to the question "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" and vote yes to the Kiwi Party and I promise that the anti-smacking bill will be 'gone by lunchtime,' said Mr Baldock.

Those wanting the petition forms can call 0800 The Kiwi Party or download the forms from www.thekiwiparty.org.nz

Smacking Poll - Kiwis Don't Want to "Move On"

Press Release 26 May 2008
More than half of our mums with young children flouting the law

A year after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law, opposition to the law change is growing. These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007. The poll surveyed 1,018 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

Opposition to the anti-smacking law has increased from 62% last year to 73% now. Only 19% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause (down from 29% in June 2007). Almost half of the survey (47%) strongly disagree with the ban on smacking.

85% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (up from 82% last year).

In a clear message to political parties seeking support for the upcoming election, when asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 37% said they would be more likely to vote for that party (up from 31% last year). The number of people whose vote would be unaffected by a policy to change the law decreased from 59% last year to 53% this year.

__________________________________________________
KEY FINDINGS
73% oppose the anti-smacking law (47% ‘strongly disagree’)
85% say the law should be changed
37% say they are more likely to vote for party that promises change to the law
More than half of mothers with children under 12 admit to flouting the law
___________________________________________________

Of most significance is the finding that almost half (48%) of parents with children under 12 openly admit that they have flouted the law and have given their child a smack to correct their behaviour. Over half of the mums polled (51%) confessed to continuing their use of smacking.

“This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police or CYF investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by arguments that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”

“Good parents have become victims of a badly drafted law.”

When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 79% responded that it was not at all likely (up from 77% last year).

As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MPs to amend the Act, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

The poll was conducted during the week beginning May 12, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.

Click here for the full result of the research, Attitudes on Parental Discipline Poll 2008.

"If you don't sign you can't complain"

If You don't sign the petition calling for a referendum on the "anti-smacking' law then you can't complain about the law at present.

With just over 1 month till we have to submit the petition back to the Clerk of the House to check for validity, NOW is the time to sign in order to have some democracy over the "anti-smacking" law.

Please go NOW to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it sign it and post them into P.O. Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga.

Also you could email your friends and family and ask them to sign it, or alternatively take it into work. You will be amazed by the positive response. Or do both

Debate on the Anti-Smacking Law

On 21 May 2008, Bob McCoskrie (National director of Family First), Beth Wood and Ian Hassle (former Children's Commissioner), authors of the book entitled "unreasonable force: nz's journey to banning physical punishment of children" are interviewed on the Good Morning Show (TV1) by host Sarah Bradley.

Below are some excerpts from the interview - which can also be viewed by clicking here. comments in bold. This interview is well worth watching - or simply reading over the comments. Bob is in his element, and secures the interview as yet another victory for Family First, in using reason and common-sense to back up the sentiments held by the majority of New Zealanders.

---

Sarah: "Last year the so called so-called anti-smacking-bill was passed into law, removing the defense of parental reasonable force in cases of assault on children...

Sarah is here claiming that the approximately 83% of parents who reserve the right to use a smack as part of the training of their children - are in fact, child abusers

A little later on in the interview, Bob holds up a copy of the Green's original Anti-Smacking Bill, pointing out that it was in fact the Green Party who gave the bill it's name.

...now, Bob, the evidence shows that hitting children does not achieve anything, why does Family First still think it's an ok thing to do?"

Bob responded by first mentioning that saying "hitting" instead of "smacking" is over the top and unreasonable. He then references the research done in Otago two years ago, which found that adults who had been smacked occasionally as children performed as well as or better than children who had not been smacked. He continues, pointing out that time-out can also be missused by parents...

"[Smacking] is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances... it is not child abuse!... It is done by a parent who simply wants to correct their child."

Sarah turns to Beth and Ian...

"Let's talk about that, Beth and Ian, because do you think that "appropriate" [sarcastic] smacking of children is child abuse?"

Beth: "I don't think smacking is appropriate, but i don't think a little smack is child abuse either... However many many children experience serious assault - not a small smack with an open hand.

Hang on - so you support the law that criminalises parents who smack their children - however you also think that a smack is ok?

Ian: "The law was really, it was an intrusive law, Section 59 what it said was that "parents who were prosecuted for assault on their children could mount a defense on the grounds that simply that they were their parents, and therefore entitled to hit their children"."

Let me first point out that Ian is completely twisting the meaning of the law here. The law stated...

(1) 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.

All Section 59 did was to determine between abuse - and child-discipline. If the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances, then the law regarding abuse was applied to the case. If the force used was reasonable, then there was no problem - the parent had not in fact, broken the law. Ian's statemtent that the law said that parents were entitled to hit their children is quite simply disgusting and depraved. The law never permitted "hitting" of children, but rather a smack, and then only if the force used was reasonable (ie. caring, loving, for the purpose of correction, and for the good of the child)

Bob: "No it didn't"

Ian: "Oh yes it did"

Bob: "That's a total misrepresentation"

Ian: "Yes it did"

Bob: "Because the word was that it had to be reasonable, they were justified if it was reasonable, and for correction. and for 99.9% of the cases, it worked perfectly. yes there were a couple of cases which raised eyebrows, I acknowledge that"

Exactly Bob. Child abuse is utterly abhorent to us - however Section 59 as it was - did an extremely good job of differentiating between abuse and a smack.

Ian: "The thing about section 59 of the crimes act was that it singled out children as a group in the population for people being allowed to strike them, to assault them in effect. the assault law covers everybody except children. And so it was essentially to restore the balance... to ensure that children had the same protection as adults. Now this doesn't mean that every assault, every technical assault on children, or adults, or anybody else becomes prosecuted or ends up in the courts, um, technically, if I'm in a bar and I jostle somebody because I want to get there, that's an assault. but nobody prosecutes...

...and there was the famous case of Tana Umaga, hitting, with the handbag, now that's an assault, it wasn't prosecuted, so it wasn't criminal" [emphasis mine]

...so this whole miasma of criminalisation that's been put up by Bob and his friends has no foundation. It's about, um, having equal rights under the law, children having equal rights under the law."

Ian can't bear the truth. The Anti-Smacking law does indeed criminalise parents who smack their children for the purpose of correction.

Ian Hassle has been part of New Zealand's beurocracy for far too long. His smooth but irrational spin is lavished over everything he says. Just for one example of the dangerous concepts Ian obviously embraces, take his use of the word "balance". "Restoring the balance". Ian is here calling for child autonomy, though not in so many words.

Sarah here turns to Bob...

Sarah: "Bob, why do you think, like, for example Bob, you would not take kindly if I came and hit you or smacked you with an open hand, but you think it's ok to hit, to smack your child... Why have you got the right to do that, but I haven't got the right to do that to you?"

Oh, one small reason Sarah, - you're not Bob's mum.

Bob: "Well Sarah, I guess I can say to you as a mum is that you cannot tell Ian and Beth to go and clean their bedroom, you can't tell them to eat their peas, or get in the car so you can take them shopping, but you can certainly do that to your three-year-old. There is a special relationship between parents and kids..."

Sarah interupts, "I would never hit my child"

And good on you, aren't you just relieved then, that no law has been passed, demanding that all parents smack their children?

Bob: "No, but a smack is ok because it's part of the correction process, which is being used effectively - now, some people don't like to smack, and they say "I don't smack", that's fine, this isn't just about smacking, this is actually about the role of parents who know their kids the best, and freedom to raise them if they're doing it in a reasonable way. You see, you may prefer time-out. But once again, time-out can become abuse when it becomes neglect. You could give them withdrawal of priviliges, but once again, that can become neglect as well. You could just scream at them, and that can become psychological abuse, so you know, every technique used by parents can become abuse but, you know, back to the crimes act, it has always been a crime to assault anybody, whether its a kid or not. All Section 59 did, was acknowledge the relationship between a parent and a child, and said "if it's part of the parenting process, just in the same way I can tell my kid that they have to eat their peas before they have pudding, I can also give them a tap on the bum and say, "you need to correct this behaviour" - not a big deal."

Beth starts explaining how Section 59 was the last law that allowed anybody to hit anybody, however Bob interjects and says:

"Except for the use of the baton by police, and tazers. Once again, it has to be reasonable, appropriate in the circumstances. You can't just say that nobody can touch another person, that we've got that out of the law - it's not the case. What about on a rugby field, some of those tackles would be an assault if they were done in the main street. Once again, it's context - what's reasonable?"

Ian responds...

"Why are you talking about this punishment? We're talking about children here, we're talking about the people we've chosen to have, to live with us in our household, why can't we have a more peaceful reasonable relationship with them, why are we always talking in New Zealand about hitting them and controlling them, time-out and all of those things - these are, these are human beings that we choose to live with."

Are we indeed always talking about hitting and controlling children?

Bob: "Yeah, that's true, but maybe we should do away with fines and do away with prisons, I mean at the end of the day there has to be consequences..."

Sarah wraps up the interview, however Bob gets one more word in,

"In 2007, the Unicef report on child abuse, in the top ten countries who have the lowest level of child abuse, six of them had not banned smacking. The safest country for kids to live in was the Netherlands, at the time of the report, they had not banned smacking."

The above quotes are as accurate as possible, taken from this interview.

14yr Old's Satire Exposes Anti-Smacking-Law Folly

from www.familyintegrity.org.nz | Concern Over Proposed 'Garden Laws'

The upcoming anti-pruning bill is ridiculous! New Zealand's garden party heads this campaign to stop all plant abuse and stick up for plants' rights. Laws against starting destructive fires and wantonly chopping down plants and trees already exist, rendering this change unnecessary. Replacing the old bill, which justifies the use of force on plants for correction and training, smacks of foolishness. The only purpose for which they will allow force is to restrain plants from harm to themselves or others. How can plants grow properly when they cannot be corrected?

The current legislation allows the "use of force" for correction and training of flora and fauna. It states that every gardener is justified in using force by way of training a plant if that force is reasonable in the circumstances. The new law achieves a full repeal of the old legislation and removes any common law rule having the same effect. This bans not only pruning, but many other valuable gardening strategies, including weeding and staking. Why tolerate a law against techniques proven successful and harmless over centuries?

With the majority of New Zealanders against the new legislation, chances of it passing appear slim, but this government often arrogantly disregards the people's opinions. Polls show that an outstanding 78% of the population oppose this bill. They realize that this change will consider talented, successful gardeners criminals under the law. Disobedience discovered means plants uprooted at great risk and placed in other care. Some will always hurt plants, but this legislation will not stop them. It will only hinder good gardeners from effectively doing their job. Get the government out of gardens!

Research shows that many of the proposal's banned procedures actually improve growth. Staking plants, which they say violates plants' rights to freedom, truly helps. A case researching the advantages of staked vs. unstaked tomato plants, revealed that damage by all species reduced significantly in staked plants. Numbers of the deadly granulate cut worms and southern army worms also inhibited by staking. Stakes and trellises not only reduce much damage to plants from other creatures, but provide support, preventing taller plants from giving way and plants with sprawling growth habits from growing wild.

Opposing this proposition is necessary. While the government tries to oversee gardeners' ways by making beneficial actions illegal, many more important issues will be overlooked. This change gives "Advice to the Police that they may use discretion about whether prosecution is necessary or not when cases of minor assaults on plants come to their notice." When more significant problems need control, why should police time be wasted pursuing and prosecuting actual effective training? The government needs to enforce laws which truly stop violence against plants. Take action against this ludicrous proposal. Write letters, phone MP's, publish articles, spread the word, and sign petitions. Will you let our nation be harmed?

Fourteen year old, Bethany Robb

MP's Should Get Real on Child Abuse

Press Release: Family First, Thursday, 15 May 2008, 9:08 am

300,000 more signatures were submitted today on a 2nd petition demanding that the government tackle the real causes of child abuse including family breakdown and domestic violence.

"This is in addition to the 350,000 signatures already collected on the 1st petition calling for the scrapping of the anti-smacking law," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "And this total continues to grow."

Organisations who originally supported the petitions, including Family First NZ, For the Sake of our Children Trust, Focus on the Family, Sensible Sentencing Trust, and Unity for Liberty amongst others, have been inundated with further requests for petition forms since the announcement that the first petition opposing the anti-smacking law had fallen short because of invalid votes.

"This is a huge response which has been reflective of the 80+% opposition to the Bradford / Clark anti-smacking law supported by far too many politicians who should have listened to the concerns of NZ parents. They simply abused the child abuse laws, and abused their law making powers. But the people have spoken."

"The inability to deal with the real causes of child abuse while criminalising good parents will be an election issue and Family First is calling on political parties to make quite clear whether they will change the law so that good parents are not criminalised for appropriate and reasonable correction of children."

"The ability for organizers to get over 650,000 signatures on the two petitions shows just how strong the feeling (and frustration) is amongst many NZ families on this issue," says Mr McCoskrie.

A Note from Larry

Today is of course the 1st year anniversary of the passing of the anti-smacking law.

We have collected over 350,000 signatures on Sheryl Savills petition and have handed in approx. 296,000 signatures on my petition to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

I suggest we all have a drink of whatever we enjoy, or eat some chocolate, or do something to celebrate that we have come this far in our battle against this legislation and our fight for those being abused.

I am confident that our full celebration is not far away.

You can watch the youtube video clip of the press conference by clicking here.

You can read the text of the press conference here also. (click here)

There are some plans being formulated to collect the remaining signatures we need.

Can we all do our best to finish this as soon as possible?

'Many hands make light work' as they say. If you have an activity you are planning to collect signatures at and need volunteers please let me know and I will put out a schedule of the opportunities for the next few weeks.

Not long to go now and we can all enjoy a little break perhaps.

Warm regards, Larry

Child Abuse Petition Submitted

Press Release: The Kiwi Party - May 14 2008. I will add a few comments in bold.

Time for a new approach on addressing family breakdown, family violence and child abuse

“Today marks the end of 14 months of collecting signatures for a CIR petition in my name to request a referendum on the question, ‘should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?’ The collection of signatures for Sheryl Savill’s petition, which is a separate question entirely, is ongoing and we have now collected approx 350,000 for that petition. I will resubmit those when we are sure we have sufficient to cross the hurdle of the audit process. Our goal is 380,000, see www.unityforliberty.net.nz for a regularly updated signature count.

Today I will deliver approx 300,000 signatures to the Clerk of the House of Representatives for my petition and we will now await (once again) a seemingly bizarre audit process to be carried out according to the CIR Act 1993.

Whatever the outcome of this process, 300,000 signatures represent a huge response from the people of New Zealand who have consistently expressed their concern at our deplorable child abuse and family violence statistics. Absolutely. 300,000 Kiwis have put pen to paper, saying that they are sick and tired of the child-abuse and family-breakdown which continues, unabated - despite the untold millions of tax-payers money that the Government continues to throw at the problem - in the form of Cindy Kiro (Children's Commissioner), and the Families Commission - as well as countless other beurocracies busy accomplishing nothing good.

After nearly nine years of a Government lead by Helen Clark and supported entirely or in part by Jim Anderton, Jeannette Fitzsimons, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters, there is not a single statistic that can be referred to that shows their ‘lame duck policies’ have worked. This is despite huge tax surpluses and a strong economy.

A clear example of this is that we now have the Minister of Social Development openly acknowledging her own department’s report that reveals the poor are worse off under a Labour Government than after the ‘mother of all budgets’ in the 90’s.

This petition and these signatures are calling for greater action on understanding and then addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse.

We begin our question with the call to “understand’, as that is the first step to solving any problem. Clearly this Government does not have any understanding of the real causes of our problems and has simply continued to keep bringing so many ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ type responses that there is no parking space left. What we really need are some solid fences constructed at the top.

Our social statistics reveal such systemic problems within our society that the Kiwi Party believes the Government should urgently appoint an independent Royal Commission to respond to this. Surely it is time to look for new answers and solutions?

Anti-smacking advocate and nanny state zealot Sue Bradford, now admits (contrary to her earlier claims) that her Anti Smacking Bill was never intended to address the causes of child abuse and reduce our awful statistics for child maltreatment deaths.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense now acknowledges that with 7 child deaths in less than a year, Bradford's Bill is a feel-good fantasy dressed up as a complete waste of time, unless of course Bradford's real plan was to deconstruct the traditional family unit." Wow, I completely agree Larry. A dangerous but brave question to ask.

Families Commission Launches Hypocritical Campaign

"Parenting. The best day's work you'll ever do" reads the large (tax-payer funded) advert at the Bus-stop. And who else would it be, but the Families Commission to give this message to New Zealanders as they drive around the city.

Ironic doesn't even begin to describe the hypocrisy of it. First they back the bill calling for the disempowerment of the majority of Kiwi mums and dads - and then they turn around and say "hey, parenting's the best!".

I have spoken to several thousand Kiwi mums and dads who do use an occasional smack now and then, to correct their children. They do this lovingly - the child understands why he is being smacked, and reconciliation is made. What tool do parents have now, to back up the requests and instructions they give their children?

Do not for one moment believe that the Families Commission is in place to support families - they are a State-run operation that has a huge anti-family agenda. That is, Family as we know it.

I do not doubt the genuine sincerity many of those involved with the commission do have for their job. The majority of these people really do care about child abuse and more functional families in New Zealand - however, they are going about it the wrong way, and are inadvertently working for the destruction of the family.

Self-important beaurocrats sit around tables - some of whom who have never had children, and they theorise about the way families should operate. Look at the list of parenting essentials and you will quickly see that there is no mention of punishment or the fact that children are naughty. Instead, following the humanist manifesto that children are basically good, and that there is no place for negativity in parenting.

Repeal Section 59 - the Facebook Group

Just a quick note. A Facebook Group has been started, calling for the repeal of Section 59.

"Kiwis don't want Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Law. Join this group to show your support for a repeal of this new anti-parental-authority law."

Click here to join.

Statistics NZ Email Explains Counting Process

"Why did the Clerk say that the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law was short by 15,500, when we had expected it to be short by approximately 3,000 signatures?"

This is the question many people have been asking.  You would have thought that the Clerk would have issued a press release, explaining the process used to make the calculation.  One of the political bloggers in New Zealand explained what was the most likely reasoning behind the Clerk's decision.  Now, finally, I have got my hands on an email from the office of Statistics NZ, explaining clearly, the process used to discern the quality of the signatures we submitted.  The selection in bold is the key bit you want to read a couple of times.

"I am replying to your enquiry seeking more details on the estimate of the number of registered electors who had signed the Citizens Initiated Referendum in regard to the "anti smacking" legislation.

The results from the sample, show the number of signatures excluded was much larger than you thought it should be.
The explanation is multiple signatures, and the adjustments that need to be made for them.
Because signatures for the petition are collected over a full year, by different collectors, and in different locations, it is possible that some people will sign the petition more than once.

Only signatures from registered electors count towards the required total. Under the legislation, a sample of signatures is taken by the Clerk of the House These signatures are then checked against the Electoral Roll by the Electoral Enrolment Centre.

In deciding whether enough electors have signed the petition, we need to take into account electors who have signed more than once. Only one of their signatures can count.

It is a rare event for both signatures from someone who has signed twice to appear in the same sample. Most signatures in the sample from people who signed twice will show up only as single signatures. It is more difficult to draw both signatures in the sample.

For these reasons, the proportion of electors in the sample does not represent the proportion of electors in the full petition who have signed the petition twice.

To put numbers into the argument we have taken a 1 in 11 sample. The probability that an elector who has signed twice and has both their signatures appear in the sample is about 1 in 121.

So the 158 double signatures in the sample will not represent 11 times 158 or about 1,738 electors who have signed twice. They will represent 121 times 158, or about 19,100 electors who have signed twice.

That is the main reason that the number of exclusions is larger than you expected..."

While we're on the subject of Referendums, below is an excerpt from Larry Baldock's address to The Kiwi Party Conference in Wellington, 5 April 2008...

"Firstly we will change the threshold for a CIR referendum from 10% of those on the electoral role as it is currently to 5% of those who voted at the previous election. The current high threshold of 10% is why so few petitions ever succeed, and that is probably the way the National and Labour parties like it to be.

In the state of California citizens can achieve a binding, yes binding referendum with a petition of only 5% of those who voted for the successful Governor at the last elections. That works out at less than 300,000 signatures in a population of 36 million.

Secondly if any citizen completes a referendum calling for the repeal of legislation already passed by a deaf parliament as we have done then those referenda must be binding also."

Larry goes on in his third and fourth points, calling for regular referendums to be held mid-term, and also for binding referendums on all private member's bills (such as Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill).  I disagree with Larry's third point - Citizen's Initated Referendums (CIR) should take place following the collection of signatures, which should not be restricted to within a pre-specified time-period mid-term.  Also, regarding Binding Citizen's Initiated Referendums, these should be used sparingly.  Statistics show that the more elections/referendums that are held, the fewer citizens participate.

Binding Referendums (not necessarily Citizen's Initiated) must be taken on all bills on moral or ethical issues.  You would find that MPs would be far less likely to introduce extreme bills, as there would be no hope of them passing, thanks to this new democratic process.

Anti-Smacking Law, One Year On

One year ago, on 2 May 2008, Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill passed it's third reading. The bill had the numbers to pass, however the entire National party turned 180 degrees and all National MPs were forced to vote in favour of the bill.

Just hours before, John Key and Helen Clark had come to an agreement for a "compromise" on the bill. ACT Party leader, Rodney Hide had this to say, on 3 May:

"I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill. Good on John Key I thought. He's taken the high ground and made a difference. That's what I thought. Until I saw the amendment. It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it's Helen Clark!! This
amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms "inconsequential" and "public interest". - Rodney Hide: "Ammendment makes no difference"

The ammendment was the new subsection 4 of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, 1961, and reads:

(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential

However, the ridiculous thing is that this "inconsequential" clause was already a part of the law in New Zealand, and applies to all cases where police are considering prosecution.

Sue Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes act
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.

...Everyday mums and dads.

The bill for repeal passes with

113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First

8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)

And on 21 May 2008, the Governor General abandoned his duty of protecting New Zealand citizens from bad law that had managed to get through the parliamentary process - and gave consent to the bill becoming law.

On Thursday 21 June 2007, the law came into effect.

New Zealand has not forgotten this dark moment in her history. This will make itself evident at the 2008 election.

Give your party vote to The Kiwi Party, or ACT, as these are the two parties who care enough about the voice of the people of New Zealand, to bring about a change in this draconian home-invasion law.

Anti-Smacking Bill Hits California

The latest news in from California...

A proposal in the California Legislature that would define a well-deserved spanking administered in love by a concerned parent using a rolled-up newspaper as child abuse – and could send that parent to jail – now is facing a delay.

The plan, AB 2943 by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-San Jose, is a rerun of her same plan that was defeated a year ago. She has stated that her proposal only addresses "child abuse" but she also defines any spanking at all as child abuse.

Several California organizations that support traditional family values and parenting rights have raised a red flag over the issue again this year. Now the Campaign for Children and Families confirms that the plan has been delayed, and it credits a flood of telephone calls and e-mails from those concerned about the issue.

"It the last two days, Assembly Appropriations Committee members have received hundreds of phone calls and e-mail messages from Californians opposed to the notion of criminalizing parents who lovingly and infrequently spank their children to correct misbehavior," the organization said in a statement today.

- "Attack on Parenting Facing Delay" 1 May 2008 (click here for full article)