|
Join Us
New form
|
Newsletters
|
Family Integrity # 143 -- Select Committee meeting 9 November and what to do until then
|
Greetings
This Thursday, 9 November, and possibly on the 16th, then on Monday and Tuesday 20 and 21 November the Select Committee reviewing the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 will meet together to finalise what they are to present to the MPs. Then they are due to report back to the MPs on November 22, 2006. So this is what we can be doing until 22 November.
1. Remember as you contact the Prime Minister and to the Members of Parliament that this is about the Repeal of Parental Authority rather than a bill to ban smacking. For more information on the Repeal of Parental Authority go to: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/uploaded/July06_mod_Repeal_of_PA.pdf.
What to do over the next two weeks: We really need to let the Members of Parliament know what we think. So we need to keep the pressure on them. We will all be getting very tired of writing to the PM and MPs. But we need to keep the pressure up and get our friends, family and neighbours doing this as well. Check out this page http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588565.
Email: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using this link:
http://www.betterdemocracy.co.nz/email_mps.php
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required when sent to Parliament
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective.
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MPs office and say ."Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it.
VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby. We are fast running out of time for visiting our MPs. We have the next few weekends and the week of 27 November to 1 December. Then Parliament breaks up for their holidays December 14.
2. Once the Select Committee reports back to Parliament Wednesday 22 November, the final vote could happen before Christmas. There is, therefore, an urgency for us all to be writing/visiting/phoning our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413.
Contact your MP today. Keep up the good work you are doing and see if you can get some new people involved in lobby the MPs.
Please pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please fast and pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara Smith 4 Tawa Street
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399
or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4399
web site: www.hef.org.nz
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
PS Information below here is from previous countdown emails. It is included here for those who have had this email forwarded to them for the first time: If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810. It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby.
2. Buy these 2 DVDs and show them around: www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
3. If you have not already then read this article in the 19 Sept 06 Herald - "Parents should sit licence test, say experts."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
and then read this article:
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm
4. Listener Poll results:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason.
5. CALL TO REPENTANCE AS A NATION As we get very near to the 2nd reading of Section 59 of the Crimes Act we need to remember that this is God's battle not ours. With the state of our Country it may be God's Will for this bill to be repealed. As we suffer perscusion the Church will be purified. This need not be though if we will be like the people of Nineveh, (Jonah 1:2). Let us be like the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5 where they believed God and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth. In Jonah 3:8 the King said "let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightly to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?" Then victory came Jonah 3:10 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it."
We also have the example of Ethelred and Alfred the Great from History.
The battle was about to begin. Alfred went to look for his brother the King and he found him with the Priest: "Ethelred-my brother-my king," he cried, "the Danes are upon us. Their lines are formed. My men are ready. A moment's delay may lose the battle." But Ethelred said quietly: "It is the service of God. Our priest is saying prayers for us and for our men. Shall I forsake the help of God to trust in men and in weapons? It is meet that the king pray for his people." Ethelred and Alfred had success that day. Two months later King Ethelred died and Alfred became King of England. At the end of 877 after 7 years as King and many victories in battle he lost his throne, luxurious lifestyle and went many a day with nothing to eat and lived hidden in the bogs and marshes. In May 878 he gathered together a rag tag army of the farmers around him. Before going into battle he prayed with his men a prayer of repentance. They had Victory at that battle.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=tappan&book=alfred&story=horse
So people of New Zealand let us pray prayers of repentance like King Alfred the Great and be like the people of Nineveh who cried mightly to God; yea, every one turned from his evil way. We might yet see God's hand keep Section 59 from being repealed
6. Also take the great opportunity to take those emails/letters/faxes you have sent to the MPs and turn them into letters to the Editors of newspapers and magazines. Here is a good link to help you send your letter to many different editors at once:
http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
This page on the Maxim website:
http://www.maxim.org.nz/changeagent/toolkit/
is a must for us all to read as we lobby the Government and Editors of papers and magazines.
7. If you have been forwarded this email and would like to be on Family Integrity's "email newsletter list" then please send an email to Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz and put "Count me in" in the subject line.
8. Please email barbara@hef.org.nz if you do not want to receive these emails or if you are on more than one list and would like to be taken off one or more lists.
Please forward this email to everyone you think would be interested.
|
Family Integrity # 142 -- Section 59 - 22 November and what to do until then
|
Greetings
We now have just over 3 weeks before the Select Committee reviewing the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is due to report back to the MPs on November 22, 2006. The Select Committee will meet together on Monday and Tuesday 20 and 21 November to finalise what they are to present to the MPs. So this is what we can be doing until 22 November.
1. The MPs are not sitting this week. So it is a great opportunity to take those emails/letters/faxes you have sent to the MPs and turn them into letters to the Editors of newspapers and magazines. Here is a good link to help you send your letter to many different editors at once:
http://www.maxim.org.nz/letter/
This page on the Maxim website: is a must for us all to read as we lobby the Government and Editors of papers and magazines.
2. Once the Select Committee reports back to Parliament Wednesday 22 November, the final vote could happen before Christmas. There is, therefore, an urgency for us all to be writing/visiting/phoning our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at: .
This week the MPs are not in Parliament so are probably in their electorates. So this is a good week to visit with your MP.
Contact your MP today.
Please pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please fast and pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara Smith 4 Tawa Street
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399
or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4399
web site: www.hef.org.nz
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
PS Information below here is from previous countdown emails. It is included here for those who have had this email forwarded to them for the first time: If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810. It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby.
2. Buy these 2 DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825
3. If you have not already then read this article in the 19 Sept 06 Herald - "Parents should sit licence test, say experts." and then read this article: 0.htm .
4. Listener Poll results: :
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason.
5. CALL TO REPENTANCE AS A NATION As we get very near to the 2nd reading of Section 59 of the Crimes Act we need to remember that this is God's battle not ours. With the state of our Country it may be God's Will for this bill to be repealed. As we suffer perscusion the Church will be purified. This need not be though if we will be like the people of Nineveh, (Jonah 1:2). Let us be like the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5 where they believed God and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth. In Jonah 3:8 the King said "let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightly to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?" Then victory came Jonah 3:10 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it."
We also have the example of Ethelred and Alfred the Great from History.
The battle was about to begin. Alfred went to look for his brother the King and he found him with the Priest: "Ethelred-my brother-my king," he cried, "the Danes are upon us. Their lines are formed. My men are ready. A moment's delay may lose the battle." But Ethelred said quietly: "It is the service of God. Our priest is saying prayers for us and for our men. Shall I forsake the help of God to trust in men and in weapons? It is meet that the king pray for his people." Ethelred and Alfred had success that day. Two months later King Ethelred died and Alfred became King of England. At the end of 877 after 7 years as King and many victories in battle he lost his throne, luxurious lifestyle and went many a day with nothing to eat and lived hidden in the bogs and marshes. In May 878 he gathered together a rag tag army of the farmers around him. Before going into battle he prayed with his men a prayer of repentance. They had Victory at that battle.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=tappan&book=alfred&story=horse
So people of New Zealand let us pray prayers of repentance like King Alfred the Great and be like the people of Nineveh who cried mightly to God; yea, every one turned from his evil way. We might yet see God's hand keep Section 59 from being repealed
6. If you have been forwarded this email and would like to be on Family Integrity's "email newsletter list" then please send an email to Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz and put "Count me in" in the subject line.
7. Please email barbara@hef.org.nz if you do not want to receive these emails or if you are on more than one list and would like to be taken off one or more lists.
Please forward this email to everyone you think would be interested.
|
Family Integrity #141 - New Reporting Date
|
Greetings all,
Well, we just got some good news. We can all spread our lobbying efforts over the next 4 weeks instead of the next couple of days.
Yesterday and today have been good practise.
Chester Borrows, National MP on the Select Committee considering Section 59, has just told us the following:
The Select Committee will meet again to consider this Bill on 20 and 21 November....next month!
They now plan to make their report to Parliament on Wednesday 22 November.
So we can prepare for next month. Continue to compose emails, faxes and letters for sending over the next 4 weeks.
Continue to view the DVDs and pass them around to others.
We'll keep in touch.
Thanks so much for your great efforts!!
Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 140 -- Information for contacting MPs ...
|
Greetings
Thanks for the efforts that so many of you have taken over phoning/emailing/faxing and sending letters to the MPs.
We noticed last night that the website with the MP contacts on it, , was down and is still down this morning. So please see the attachment with the information for contacting the MPs.
It would be good if more people could be phoning the MP offices today and tomorrow. This is a job that most of us don't like to do. I too was putting it off. But I just made my first phone call and it was so easy. The MPs are all too busy to talk, so you just talk to whoever answers the phone. Just say that you oppose or are against the repeal of Section 59 and say that you would like to have that recorded and give your name - for today 25th and tomorrow 26th. Start at Jim Anderson's office and ring the Progressives then New Zealand First, Maori, Labour, and Green Parties, Katherine Rich and Peter Dunne and, only if you have time, the rest of United Future, the rest of National and ACT Parties.
We are regularly putting up letters to the MPs, press releases and media reports on www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz. So there are plenty of examples to follow and new information to write about.
Please keep the pressure up on the MPs with your phone calls, emails, faxes and letters. The MPs will be in their electorates from Friday 27th until 7 November 2006. So this is a good time to make a visit to your MPs.
Please send this email to everyone you sent the previous emails to, thanks.
Regards
Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity #139 A -- Final Countdown 1
|
Greetings
Final Countdown
This is the last week that Parliament is sitting before 31 October when the Select Committee is due to report back on Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 and make all good parents into criminals.
Strategy: Send a Firestorm of communications
Parliament needs to know the NZ Public does not want this Bill to proceed. All polls show 80% of NZers are against making smacking illegal.
Tues 24 October (tomorrow)
Wed 25 October and
Thurs 26 October
Send a constant stream of emails, letters, faxes and phone calls asking MPs to vote against Bradford's Bill, asking them to keep Section 59 as it is. Parliament needs to pay attention to the silent majority. (Facts and ideas below.)
Several years ago the home schoolers of the USA were asked to do the same to the US Congress in Washington DC to protest HR6, an anti-homeschooling Bill. They sent so many messages and phone calls, it jammed the switchboards and closed down communications for nearly two days! The Congressmen got the message and the Bill got thoroughly buried by Congress, with only one vote in its favour: its author.
Methodology
Send a constant stream of emails, faxes, letters and phone calls to the MPs.
MPContacts (two lists):
1.) This is a PDF file containing all the contact details of each MP.
http://tinyurl.com/y8xhgm
(If you don't have a PDF Adobe Acrobat reader, it can be downloaded for free at:
http://tinyurl.com/t4eqn)
2.) See separate email following this one.
Emails: send emails to every email address listed. Some are at the MP's office in Wellington, some at their office in their electorate. Send emails to them all. Send several a day. Send them on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday. If you copy and paste each email address into an email form, you can use that one over and over again, just changing the content of the email's message each time. Pasting them into the BCC (blind copy) section is less annoying to those who receive it.
Faxes: The ones with the (04) prefix are the ones at their Wellington office. This is the one to use. Send the same fax to each MP. Change it slightly, and send it again. Send dozens of faxes to your own MP, each one different. Send them on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday.
This does take time and it does cost more than emails, but your grandchildren's futures are at stake. It is a tiny investment to make for the future security of our country.
Letters: Write to your own MP, at least one a day on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday. When you post it to:
MP(first name / last name)
c/- Parliament Buildings
Wellington
you do not need to put a stamp on it. Send one to each MP. Yes it takes time, put it only costs the paper and envelope: this is a great investment for the future of New Zealand.
Phone: Ring the Wellington office (04) prefix. Leave a message to ring back. Yes, this also takes time and costs. The investment is well worth it. (Simple message: "Hello, this is Fred Dagg in Palmerston North. Please vote against Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59. This Bill will make all good parents into criminals. Thank you. Goodbye.") (If they want to argue, simply reply, "Well, I don't want to discuss it, I simply want to ask you to vote against the repeal of Section 59. Thank you. Goodbye.")
Important: Always be polite and respectful, cool, calm and collected. Please never resort to rudeness, sarcasm, exaggeration. The facts and common sense and what is right are on our side. We don't need other tactics.
So please pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please fast and pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
4 Tawa Street
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
Facts & Ideas (more at www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz):
Repealing Section 59 will make all good parents into criminals, guilty of assault, who (against the child's will) so much as make their child finish its veggies or carry it to its room for bedtime or make it change its clothes or even give it a cuddle.
This being the case, virtually all parents will find their parenting activities criminalized. They only await being complained about, anonymously, to the police or a social worker by a nosey neighbour, a busybody onlooker who sees something out of context, a relative with an ax to grind or an angry, unthinking child unaware of the horrible consequences of making such a complaint....the police are obliged to investigate or refer to social workers.
Any form of smacking, however light, will be a clear case of assault, worth as much as two years in jail (see Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act).
Polls of all kinds have consistently shown 80% of NZers agree that parents should be able to use reasonable smacks with children when needed.
If Section 59 is repealed, the only ones allowed to use any force with our children for correction, training or discipline will be the Police and social workers. None of us wants our children in trouble with the Police.....that's why we correct, train and discipline while they're young. And social workers generally only correct geography not behaviour (that is, where the child is allowed to stay: with you or with the police or with a foster home or with some other institution.)
It is totally unreasonable to make the "reasonable force" of Section 59 into a crime, which has to mean that "reasonable force" is now to be considered "unreasonable force" since it is a crime.
Section 59 gives parents legal authority to use reasonable force to correct, train and discipline their children. It recognises that parents have a responsibility and authority to correct, train and discipline. If Section 59 is repealed, parents will lose the legal authority to use reasonable force to back up their authority in the correction, training and discipline process. If police could not use force (arrest, fines, imprisonment) to back up their authority, people would soon ignore them. Children would soon learn to ignore parents if Section 59 is repealed. This is a recipe for social chaos.
Stated purpose of Bill: To reduce violence toward children.
First: violence, injury, abuse and excessive force are already illegal (see Sections 62, 167, 188, 189, 193, 194, 195 of the Crimes Act).
Second: Repeal will massively increase the range of behaviours not authorised by law, namely, every use of reasonable force by parents to train, correct or discipline their children. (Family Integrity holds a letter from former Police Commissioner Rob Robinson's legal advisor, Dr A. Jack, and a letter from current Police Commissioner Howard Broad both confirming this as fact. Also, repeal will not affect a parent's legal authorisation to use reasonable force to remove a child from harm's way or to restrain a child from harming itself, others or property.)
Third: Any such act which is opposed by the child will become by definition an act of criminal assault (see definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act).
Fourth: This means responsible parents engaged in training, correcting and disciplining their children will be largely criminalized.
Fifth: Since repeal of Section 59 has the effect of re-defining reasonable force as assault, violence (via assault) toward children will in fact increase.
Sixth: It is misguided and irrational to criminalise parenting efforts to train, correct and discipline their children.
Seventh: It is misguided and irrational to re-define reasonable force as criminal assault.
Eighth: This Bill does nothing to address the real causes of violence against children: alcohol and drug abuse, pornography, school bullying, the culture of death promoted by the abortion industry.
For more information read: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810 or go to: www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
If you have been forwarded this email and would like to be on Family Integrity's "email newsletter list" then please send an email to Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz and put "Count me in" in the subject line.
|
Family Integrity # 138 -- Today's Herald article
|
Here's a great article in today's Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00022C44-0A92-153B-880A83027AF10112
or
http://tinyurl.com/yy4pgh
By Lincoln Tan
Spare the rod - and expect trouble in return
Monday October 23, 2006
There is a Chinese saying, da shi ai, which literally translates to mean to hit is to love.
It is said that a parent who spares the rod hates his child, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
While I am totally against people who physically abuse a child in the name of discipline, I believe there are times when the rod still needs to be used.
Three weeks ago, while having a bowl of noodles at a food court on Queen St, a 40-ish mother and her son, aged about 8 or 9, sat at a table next to me.
In between talking about Ant Bully, which I presumed was a movie they had just watched, the boy asked for money to play arcade games. When the mother said no, hell broke loose.
After screaming a litany of obscenities and calling his mother a name equating her to a female dog, the boy started shaking the table with his hands.
People were looking in their direction, and the mother tried to pacify the boy.
Mommy will get you some ice cream if you behave, she said to him. The food arrived, and another scene started. The brat began throwing his fried rice all over the table and floor, squealing: "I don't want to eat!"
By this time, the mother, who probably could not take the antics of the little runt any more, handed him a $10 bill and they walked away, their food left uneaten.
I just stared in shock and disbelief. If anyone deserved a spank on the backside, it had to be this little monster.
Had I tried to pull off even a fraction of what that little boy did with my mom when I was his age, I would almost certainly have been facing the cane.
My mother is probably one of the most ardent believers that a whack on the backside is the best method to keep us on the right path of life, and being the rascal that I was as a child, I think mom's method did me a lot of good.
Growing up in Singapore where corporal punishment is legal, no one would raise an eyelid on the right of a mother so spank her child.
But in New Zealand, my mother did to me would have made her a criminal - guilty of assault and abuse.
The justice and electoral committee is due to report back to Parliament at the end of this month on Green MP Sue Bradford's Crimes Amendment Bill. If her bill, calling for the abolition of force as a justification for child discipline becomes law, then parents who smack their children will all become criminals.
Now, Section 59 of the Crimes Act states that parents are justified in using force by way of correction towards the child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. But Bradford wants all forms of physical disciplining by parents to come under the general law of assault, meaning parents can be convicted for smacking their children. Is this just political correctness gone mad?
Last Friday, the plights of two mothers were highlighted in Pansy Speak, National MP Pansy Wong's email-circulated newsletter.
In one case, a mother who smacked her son who had used a baseball bat to attack his stepfather during an argument was reported to the police by a social worker.
Another involved a mother who had gone to pick up her 12-year-old daughter after discovering her drinking alcohol in the streets. The daughter refused to get into the car and the mother dragged her in, and the girl then laid a complaint of assault against her mother.
By removing the trust we have as a society on the judgment of parents and guardians on disciplining their children, are we instead just arming our youth with ammunition to get back at mom and dad whenever they are not happy with something and unnecessarily stretching our already stretched policing resources?
Wasted Childhood, a report in the Weekend Herald on Saturday highlighted an increasing number of parents who choose the easy way of raising their children by using television and computer games as electronic babysitters.
But a survey of 10,000 youngsters aged between 13 and 18 found exposure to violence and sex on TV, movies and computers desensitises children's behaviour and makes them more likely to become violent. It also found that it made children unhealthy, and the more TV they watched, the worse they did at school.
Contrast this with an earlier study by the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Unit which tracked 1000 children born in Dunedin between 1972 and 1973, which found those who were smacked had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievements than those who were not.
I say parents who choose the easy way out in raising kids by not attempting to discipline them are far bigger criminals than those who smack their children.
I am definitely not in support of parents who physically or psychologically abuse their children, but I think parents should still have the right to use the rod judiciously, when absolutely necessary.
A few years ago, I had a talk with mom about her method of discipline and the concept of da shi ai.
She explained that as a mother, it hurt her infinitely more to discipline us with the cane than not to. As a parent myself now, I can totally understand where she was coming from.
Leaving most of the disciplining of our children to my wife, I find it a lot easier being Mr Nice Guy with them. I cannot imagine myself even being able to lay a finger on my two kids.
Mom told me: With every stroke, the pain extends from the tip of the cane to my whole being, but I still had to do it because I want you to turn out the best that you can be.
Nothing criminal in her thinking, is there?
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 137 -- Pansy Speak: Two standards of behaviour
|
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00402.htm
Pansy Speak: Two standards of behaviour
Friday, 20 October 2006, 11:04 am
Column: New Zealand National Party
Two standards of behaviour
Since the last edition of this newsletter I have been overwhelmed with responses to ‘A Logical Debate about Smacking’.
So far the majority of the feedback is heavily against repealing Section 59, with many respondents wanting to keep the legal defence of using reasonable force when disciplining their children.
Everyone who has emailed or written to me has illustrated a measured and logical argument and there was no bad language. This shows that people have taken the time to think about what they want to say.
I was given many personal examples as to why the majority felt they would be left vulnerable if Section 59 was repealed and the decision about whether or not to prosecute was left in the hands of the Police and other bureaucracy.
Two stories have stuck in my mind. In one, a mother discovered her 12-year-old daughter was drinking alcohol in the street and went to pick her up. When the daughter refused to get into the car, her mother dragged her in, which led to the daughter laying a complaint of assault against her mother.
The second involves a mother of five who was acquitted in the Timaru District Court when using Section 59 as a defence. She had written a long and emotional letter to me saying she had tried all forms of non-physical discipline in trying to change the behaviour or one of her sons, but this hadn’t worked. One day, her son picked up a baseball bat and swung with full force at his stepfather during an argument. The mother then smacked the son using a riding crop. A social worker subsequently laid a complaint with the Police, who took five months to press charges. Even though this woman was acquitted, her son was still placed in care.
Labour and the Greens have been identified by respondents as leading the crusade to stamp out violent behaviour in our society by repealing Section 59. These two parties have also been singled out as showing a lack of confidence in the judgment of parents and guardians.
The attitude of Labour and the Greens to Section 59 is in stark contrast to their attitude towards the Auditor-General’s report which ruled on illegal spending leading up to the 2005 election.
Labour fast tracked a bill to make the illegal spending legal, while the Greens abstained to ensure the bill was passed with indecent haste. It was introduced on Tuesday 17 October and was passed into law on Wednesday 18.
We all know that Labour love to tell us what to do while making their own rules, but this debacle takes the cake.
I have read through the whole Auditor-General’s report and would like to share with you some of the findings.
As a fellow accountant I am immensely proud that the Auditor-General has single-handedly elevated the reputation of accountants and restored the integrity and respect of independent offices such as the Office of the Auditor-General.
His report made it clear that he had reviewed ‘advertising’ spending in August 2004 and had met with the leaders, or representatives of six of the eight political parties to discuss his concern in this area of public expenditure. All parties were then given the opportunity to comment on his report of the review before it was finalised in 2005.
He was aware of the sensitivity surrounding advertising matters in election year and had wanted to make his view on advertising in the year before the election clear. It is interesting to note that some parties told him that he should not present his report to Parliament before the election. Ignoring this advice is proof of his strength.
In his 2005 review report the Auditor-General said ‘any publicly funded advertising by political parties that does take place between now and the general election must be consistent with the existing rules, and will be subject to the oversight of the Speaker’, therefore the cries by Labour, United Future, the Greens and NZ First that he has changed the rules in his latest report are not credible.
The Auditor-General has also drawn further attention to a Speakers’ ruling in November 2003, which says parliamentary funding is explicitly prohibited to apply to electioneering material. In light of the current situation, where is the accountability of the Speaker to whom Parliamentary Service reports?
Apparently, the Speaker told the Auditor-General that she is not able to adequately fulfil her role as the Minister responsible for Vote: Parliamentary Service.
In order to preserve the Speaker’s impartiality, the Parliamentary Service has not, in practice, involved the Speaker in matters which a responsible Minister might usually consider. Because of this position, the Speaker is unable to fully carry out her duties as one might consider them to be.
The question I have today is that if parents or guardians fall foul of the law after any repeal of Section 59 would they be accorded the same leniency that the Labour Government has given itself?
Pansy Wong
www.pansywong.co.nz
www.national.org.nz
|
Family Integrity # 136 -- Stick together
|
Dear Friends,
The email below just arrived today. See how effective it can be when like-minded folks stick together and join in simple, direct action?
We're in the last days of this Bill's passage through Parliament: it is supposed to be reported on by the Select Committee by 31 October, and the second and third (final) votes taken sometime after that. Please, get everyone you know to write...to email....to ring...their MP, all the MPs, and ask them to please vote against Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59. Constant pressure will do the job.
MPs are sitting in Parliament on the following days:
24, 25, 26 October
7, 8, 9 November
14, 15, 16 November
21, 22, 23 November
and they're most likely in their home electorates apart from that. To contact by mail at Parliament (no postage stamp needed), post to:
Name of MP
c/- Parliament Buildings
Wellington
To contact by email at Parliament, send to:
FirstName.LastName@parliament.govt.nz
Otherwise visit:
http://www.parliament.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
for each MP's full contact details.
Keep the pressure on.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
-----Original Message-----
From: AFA ActionAlert [mailto:contact@mail2.afamail.net]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: AFA forces NBC to cancel scene mocking crucifixion of Christ
Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
October 19, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
AFA forces NBC to cancel scene mocking crucifixion of Christ
Dear Craig,
AFA supporters have won a great victory! The efforts of AFA Online supporters has forced NBC to cancel a scene in the upcoming Madonna special in which she mocks the crucifixion of Christ!
More than 750,000 AFA supporters emailed NBC asking for the scene to be deleted from the special which is scheduled to air in November. NBC saw a potential loss of $25,000,000 and decided to edit out the scene.
We were effective because we stuck together and combined our voices. Our supporters not only emailed NBC, but they also called their local NBC stations. Those stations contacted NBC and the network listened. The scene is gone!
Please help us grow by forwarding this to your friends and family and invite them to become a part of AFA Online. If we who believe in traditional values join together, we can accomplish much.
If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
|
Family Integrity # 135 -- Less than 2 weeks to go - Section 59 - What can we be doing now?
|
Greetings
With only 2 weeks to go until the Section 59 Select Committee has to report back to Parliament the debate is hotting up.
1. Write your MP as many times as you remember to do so. There are many negative aspects of repealing Section 59 and NO, I repeat, there are NO positive aspects to repeal, unless you buy the extremist arguments of Bradford and Co that repeal will somehow send the desired message moving all abusers to stop their abuse, and that the Police will not uphold the wording of the law and press charges against the suddenly vastly increased number of unjustifiable acts of technical assault.
Repeal will reduce parental authority to near zero since they will be unauthorised to use any force at all, however light, to back up their authority.
Repeal will expose every single parent to charges of criminal assault (worth as much as two years in jail) whenever that parent uses or even threatens to use reasonable force, however light, to make the child do what is required or to make the child stop doing what is forbidden.
Repeal will transfer parental authority to use force to two groups: the police and social workers. It has already been said that police are not likely to pursue cases of reported "smacking" (which will become acts of criminal assault), but will instead refer them to CYFs who already operate according to a policy which regards smacking, however light, as assault.
Repeal does nothing to reduce real abuse and violence: tightening up TV and video violence, being tougher on school yard bullying, dealing with the drug and alcohol abuse and addressing the culture of violence and death wherein mothers are encouraged to premeditate upon and then seek out and destroy their own unborn children would all do much more to reduce New Zealand's record of violence.
Write your MP today.
2. The Select Committee will be meeting again on THURSDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2006 12-1pm and will be reporting back to Parliament shortly after that. The second reading could be before October 31. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing/visiting/phoning our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters/emails/faxes to the MPs.
4. From Ruby Harrold-Claesson "The Verdict came by fax today. The court refuses to let the children go. I'm so disappointed for those poor parents." "Many thanks for your kind thoughts and your expressions of sympathy for Mats Nilsson and his wife Charlotte Ydström-Nilsson and their seven children in unnecessary foster care. Even their eighth child, their two year old, is on the losing end. She has been deprived daily loving contact with her father and her siblings. These two years - or how much longer this cruel injustice will last - can never be compensated.
"Until October 16, 2003, the Nilsson family was a big, happy family living at one and the same address. On that day the family was broken up and six of the children were placed at one address, the seventh, a boy who is handicapped by Spina Bifida, was placed at a second address and mother and father were left alone. Then baby came along on Sept. 13, 2004, and mother and father had to separate - mother went "under ground" to protect the baby. Now the ten family members are living at four different addresses. That is Family Care Swedish style!
"The father called me four times yesterday. He had difficulty hiding his disapointment. The only thing we can do now is appeal and hope that there is some justice somewhere in the Swedish Administrative courts.
"OBS! It's cases like this one that will become a reality for many parents in NZ if Sue Bradford gets her Bill through."
More on this story at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/589946
5. The Listener articles can now be read online:
Hands Off
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/features/7077/hands_off.html
Zero tolerance
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/features/7078/zero_tolerance.html
Love & correction
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/features/7079/love_correction.html
6. Within TWO weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This must happen by 31 October 2006. The second reading of the Bill will occur sometime after that - which could be before October 31. Therefore time is running out. We all need to act now. Above all we must be much in prayer that God's Will will be done. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Plus we need to see a public firestorm of protest to the MPs. So please let others know too.
So please pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please fast and pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
PS Information below here is from previous countdown emails. It is included here for those who have had this email forwarded to them for the first time: If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810. It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby. And read this article:
Should Reasonable Correction Of Children Be Illegal? - An Article About Michael Drake's New Book
2. Buy these DVDs and show them around:
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825
Advert for DVDs, Broadband users - (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for DVDs, Dial-up- (1 min 37 sec)
3. If you have not already then read this article in the 19 Sept 06 Herald - "Parents should sit licence test, say experts."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
and then read this article:
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm
4. Listener Poll results:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason.
5. Letters to the Listener Editor :
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3465/letters/7156.html
and
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/letters/7097.html
(You can still write letters to the Listener Editor, via email, letters@listener.co.nz, or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address. Then turn those emails/letters into letters to the MPs).
6. CALL TO REPENTANCE AS A NATION As we get very near to the 2nd reading of Section 59 of the Crimes Act we need to remember that this is God's battle not ours. With the state of our Country it may be God's Will for this bill to be repealed. As we suffer perscusion the Church will be purified. This need not be though if we will be like the people of Nineveh, (Jonah 1:2). Let us be like the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5 where they believed God and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth. In Jonah 3:8 the King said "let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightly to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?" Then victory came Jonah 3:10 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it."
We also have the example of Ethelred and Alfred the Great from History.
The battle was about to begin. Alfred went to look for his brother the King and he found him with the Priest: "Ethelred-my brother-my king," he cried, "the Danes are upon us. Their lines are formed. My men are ready. A moment's delay may lose the battle." But Ethelred said quietly: "It is the service of God. Our priest is saying prayers for us and for our men. Shall I forsake the help of God to trust in men and in weapons? It is meet that the king pray for his people." Ethelred and Alfred had success that day. Two months later King Ethelred died and Alfred became King of England. At the end of 877 after 7 years as King and many victories in battle he lost his throne, luxurious lifestyle and went many a day with nothing to eat and lived hidden in the bogs and marshes. In May 878 he gathered together a rag tag army of the farmers around him. Before going into battle he prayed with his men a prayer of repentance. They had Victory at that battle.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=tappan&book=alfred&story=horse
So people of New Zealand let us pray prayers of repentance like King Alfred the Great and be like the people of Nineveh who cried mightly to God; yea, every one turned from his evil way. We might yet see God's hand keep Section 59 from being repealed.
7. If you have been forwarded this email and would like to be on Family Integrity's "email newsletter list" then please send an email to Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz and put "Count me in" in the subject line.
8. Please email barbara@hef.org.nz if you do not want to receive these emails or if you are on more than one list and would like to be taken off one or more lists.
Please forward this email to everyone you think would be interested.
|
Family Integrity # 134 -- UN interference
|
Dear Friends,
In an earlier email I briefly outlined some of the extreme rhetoric in a UN document released just last June. It is even scarier than what I said about it before.
By way of introduction, remember that NZ has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). Now there is a UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, a police group of UN bureaucrats who go around to see how well countries are changing their laws to be in harmony with UNCROC. This Committee is composed of 18 people, champions of children's rights from such havens of liberty as Algeria, Burkina Faso, Qatar, Bangladesh and Uganda (see http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/members.htm for the complete list).
This crowd produced “General Comment No. 8” dated 2 June 2006, titled, “The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment.” (Read it yourself at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.) Note how even in the title they lump corporal punishment in with other forms, all of which are considered cruel or degrading. Now keep in mind that the stated focus of this document, in the title and in paragraph 1, is "corporal punishment". Our Section 59, which is under threat of being repealed by Sue Bradford's Bill, says that parents are legally justified in using "reasonable force by way of correction" which is not the same as punishment, but is parallel with training and discipline.
This document's paragraph 20 reveals that while the UNCROC was being drafted, there was not even any discussion of a prohibition on corporal punishment and that UNCROC Articles 19 and 28(2) do not mention it, even though these are often quoted by the anti-smacking lobby as if they did. But that's ok, the paragraph says, because we must consider UNCROC as a "living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time." Isn't that handy? You can make it say whatever you want it to say and call it a "development."
So when this Committee says, in paragraph 8, "the Committee called upon States to enact or repeal, as a matter of urgency, their legislation in order to prohibit all forms of violence, however light, within the family and in schools, including as a form of discipline," they at first appear to be going outside of the purpose of UNCROC and having a go at discipline, which is not even the same as punishment, and punishment wasn't even part of their original brief.....but all these things now are properly in the crosshairs of the Committee because they've interpreted it to be this way. They do this because they have adopted some very extreme definitions of violence: for example, as just quoted in their paragraph 8: "violence, however light". In paragraph 11 they say, “The Committee defines “corporal” or “physical” punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.”
This really is a bit of sneaky sleight of hand. Punishment is not defined in terms of purpose or intention, but in terms of force that is intended to cause pain or discomfort, "however light". How light is that? Probably as light as the "violence, however light" that paragraph 8 wants to see all countries prohibit.
To make it clearer, they say in paragraph 31, "The Committee has noted that in many States there are explicit legal provisions in criminal and/or civil (family) codes which provide parents with a justification for using some degree of violence in 'disciplining' children. For example, the defence of 'lawful', 'reasonable' or 'moderate' chastisement or correction has formed part of English common law for centuries. The Committee emphasizes that the Convention requires the removal of any provisions (in statute or common-case-law) which allow some degree of violence against children (e.g. 'reasonable' correction), in their homes/families or in any other setting."
So, the transition from considering only corporal punishment to now including "reasonable correction" as an act of violence against children is complete. When they condemn "corporal punishment" it is clear they now also mean to include "reasonable correction", words that come straight out of our Section 59, in their condemnation, for such things they have defined as violence agaisnt children, however light that may be.
To make doubly sure, they say in paragraph 34, "Explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in their civil or criminal legislation is required in order to make it absolutely
clear that it is as unlawful to hit or 'smack' or 'spank' a child as to do so to an adult, and that the criminal law on assault does apply equally to such violence, regardless of whether it is termed discipline or 'reasonable correction'”. And in paragraph 39, "But it should be made explicitly clear that the criminal law provisions on assault also cover all corporal punishment, including in the family."
This time "smacking" and our Section 59's "reasonable correction" are specifically condemned. They say that legal prohibitions of these things is required. Our Parliament is being told what to do by this UN Committee of 18 persons whom we didn't even elect. And they intend for parents to be criminalised by the laws governing assault within their own families, just as Family Integrity has been saying all along.
We must oppose this madness, and I trust each of us is writing regularly to our MPs. For this Committee will not stop simply because Section 59 gets repealed (if it ever does). No, they say in paragraph 43, "It is essential that the prohibition of all corporal punishment, and the sanctions that may be imposed if it is inflicted, should be well disseminated to children and to all those working with or for children in all settings." So they will insist that schools and day care centres and probably any youth group be made to inform children of their rights not to be smacked or disciplined, however light, and what the sanctions against the parents might be.
And in paragraph 52: "The Committee underlines the importance of independent monitoring of implementation, by, for example, parliamentary committees,
NGOs, academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups and independent human rights institutions." Youth groups, including the one at your church, and schools will be recruited to monitor how effectively parents are getting the message that they are not to use any form of reasonable correction, however light, for it has been re-defined as violence against children, an act of criminal assault.
Repeal of Section 59 would only be the start. All these other evils will soon follow, just as this UN Committee unashamedly declares. Oh, I left one out, one that will specifically target many Christians. Paragraph 29 says, "Some raise faith-based justifications for corporal punishment, suggesting that certain interpretations of religious texts not only justify its use, but provide a duty to use it. Freedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." There you have it: the UN declares that it will interfere with your family's religious practises if they happen to include reasonable correction, however light.
Please write your MP today and simply say you do not want to see Section 59 repealed as it will criminalise parents.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 133 -- New DVDs
|
Dear Friends,
Family Integrity has produced three DVDs to fully inform you and your friends and family about the issues surrounding Bradford's Bill to repeal our authority as parents by repealing Section 59.
The first has three parts: Renton Maclachlan exposes some of the lies and slander the media have promoted and makes a unique appeal using Lord of the Rings imagery to us to get informed and involved. Then I explain the main issues around repeal of Section 59. Then there is an interview with Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson explaining the mess Sweden is in as a result of similar legislation there.
The second DVD is Ruby's presentation of the sad facts surrounding the Swedish Experiment and how it has led to state abuse of families and children.
In the third DVD I get to square off with MPs Sue Bradford and Peter Dunne in a Forum held on the issue 28 August 2006 at Khandallah Presbyterian Church in Wellington. This one is a lot of fun! The thinking of each of us is more fully exposed for all to see.
Visit our website at www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz and view from the home page a couple of wee video clips, one advertising all 3 DVDs and the other showing Bradford's creative use of stats.
Your purchase will help Family Integrity ensure each MP will get a copy of each and you can also use your DVDs to pass around your friends, relations, church congregation, etc. It is important that we move NOW because time is short: the Select Committee is due to report back to Parliament on this Bill by 31 October and the vote will be sometime after that.
Regards,
Craig Smith
PS -- Have you written or emailed your MP today yet?
|
Family Integrity # 132 -- prelude to the recent research
|
Physical Punishment of NZ Children 'Common, Prolonged and Gender-Specific'
Otago research also indicates that many young people find non-physical methods worse
27 January 2006
Four out of five New Zealand children have been physically punished, with one in two still hit in adolescence, according to a new University of Otago study examining experiences of physical punishment and discipline in the home in the 1970s and 80s.
The findings, based on data obtained from the nearly 1,000 members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, appear in the latest issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal.
The results show that the large majority of study members interviewed (80%) received physical punishment in childhood. For over a quarter of all interviewees (29%), smacking was the most severe physical punishment; 45% reported being hit with an object; and 6% described experiences of extreme physical punishment such as being beaten up or knocked unconscious.
"Our results suggest that parental use of corporal punishment is very much the norm for New Zealand children", says Dr Jane Millichamp, lead author of the paper, which she co-authored with Ms Judy Martin and Prof John Langley at the University's Dunedin School of Medicine.
The study members were 26 years old when interviewed about aspects of family violence and were reporting about events that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. However, recent studies from the United Kingdom and United States indicate similar punishment rates for today's children, says Dr Millichamp.
"Not only did we find that physical punishment was extremely prevalent, it was also administered over a long time period in many cases. Nearly half of the sample (47%) confirmed that they were still being physically punished in adolescence."
"We noted some interesting gender differences - Girls were more likely to receive lower-level physical punishment such as being smacked with an open hand, whereas boys were more likely to be hit with an object such as a belt," she says.
However, the authors found that when it came to the most extreme physical punishment, there was no difference in male-to-female ratios and boys and girls were exposed to this form of violence in similar numbers.
Six percent of study members reported being subjected to extreme physical punishment, which the researchers defined as any repeated physical act by a parent that resulted in lasting bruises or injury.
Examples of physical punishment falling into the extreme category were: hitting with a range of objects such as vacuum cleaner hoses, whips and metal pipes; punching with closed fist; repeated kicking; and beating.
"Our study revealed some unique characteristics related to extreme physical punishment when compared to milder forms," says Dr Millichamp.
"One finding that stands out from the rest is that extreme acts of punishment are not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand. In many cases, extreme punishment presents in the form of 'blind rage' meted out to girls and boys indiscriminately, younger and older children, and, irrespective of the child's characteristics or actions preceding it."
Additional findings indicated that extreme physical punishment was more frequently: 1) directed at the child's head and torso, as opposed to the limbs or bottom; 2) associated with lasting and/or serious injury (eg, lacerations, broken bones, loss of consciousness); and 3) associated with strong signs of emotional distress in the study members reporting it.
"When we examined the reasons for administering punishment, it was apparent that often, the punishment did not fit the 'crime'," she says.
"Some children were punished very violently for the smallest of things, such as, wearing the wrong clothes, talking while the TV was on, or just being in the same room as an angry parent."
The study also identifies a number of parental characteristics associated with the use of extreme physical punishment.
These include: gender, with fathers and stepfathers significantly more likely to use extreme punishment than mothers; and psychological problems on the parents' part such as alcohol abuse and perpetual bad temper, as reported by study members.
Some surprising results were reported in relation to the study members' views of the worst punishment ever received, she says.
"The category of punishment most frequently cited as worst was non-physical punishment such as grounding and loss of privileges. Many study members stated that even though they were smacked or hit with an object, they viewed the loss of privileges as far more negative.
"The fact that grounding and privilege loss were so aversive and memorable to the study members, suggests that these methods may be the punishment of choice for parents with adolescents. The advantage of these non-physical methods is that they don't involve the use of physical force, with all the associated risks of escalation, retaliation, modelling of aggression, and injury," she says.
The authors are currently undertaking further research on the topic of child punishment.
"We are in the process of completing a second paper which will examine the association between the types of punishment received in childhood such as, smacking and more severe physical punishment, and how children do later in life."
Contact:
Dr Jane Millichamp*
Depaertment of Psychological Medicine
Otago Medical School
Tel (03) 474 7007 ext 8124
Email jane.millichamp@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
Greetings all,
In the World Congress on Families Press Release below, note the rationale given by the German authorities for their Nazi-era tactics:
the German courts ruled that it was in the children’s best interests
This is precisely the "reasoning" and rhetoric we hear in New Zealand. It is the guiding "principle" written into the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the NZ Children's Commission. It sets up an adversarial situation between parents and children and then treats this adversarialism as the normative, standard, proper way to view the parent -- child relationship with the increasing number of so-called child advocacy groups wedging themselves in the gap between parents and children in order to "protect children's rights".
We must train up our children to understand that all the "nice people" from Plunket, Barnardoes, Save the Children, UNICEF, Children's Commission, Families Commission, etc., etc., are either consciously or unconsciously ideologically pre-disposed to think of parents as guilty of some form of abuse or ill-treatment, and that they (the advocacy groups) will find the parents out in due time and then make moves to rescue the children.
Repeal of Section 59 is key: it will put all parenting activity that utilises force, however light (taking a recalcitrant child to bed against its wishes, making children finish their veges or brush their teeth, and of course any smacking at all), in the category of criminal assault....if you cannot do it to a passing adult, you cannot do it to your child). Parents will then only await being charged by Police due to an anonymous tip-off (the anonymous person being protected from identification and prosecution by Sections 15 & 16 of the CYF Act 1989), a malicious neighbour or relation, an angry child who in that moment of anger has no idea of the consequences.....or a CYFs social worker's belief that there are "reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child...is likely to suffer ill-treatment" (Section 39(1), CYF Act 1989).
Oppose the repeal of Section 59 with all the prayer and activity you can muster.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Have you written or emailed your MP today?
World Congress of Families press release, 11 October 2006:
http://www.profam.org
http://www.worldcongress.org
or
http://familymanifesto.net
CARLSON BLASTS EUROPEAN DECISION ON HOME-SCHOOLING
World Congress of Families President Dr. Allan Carlson said he was appalled by the decision of the European Human Rights Court in Strasburg which upheld a German ban on home-schooling.
“The ban was instituted by the Nazis and it’s a device worthy of the Nazis,” Carlson declared. “The European Convention on Human Rights notwithstanding, the court specifically held that parents do not have a right to direct their children’s education.”
The case concerned German Christian families who objected to life-style indoctrination in public schools, in the guise of sex education.
The European Convention acknowledges that “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such (public) education and teachings is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Said Carlson: “Despite this clear mandate, the German courts ruled that it was in the children’s best interests to be indoctrinated in the prevailing social order - in other words, to be imbued with what the state considers the correct social values.”
The Human Rights Court confirmed that, holding: “Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals of primary school education.”
Carlson charged: “Hitler himself said that only the state had the right to direct children’s education so that youth would be taught the ideology of National Socialism. How ironic that a Europe which prides itself on tolerance and diversity has embraced an instrument for social control devised by the Nazis.”
|