|
Join Us
New form
|
Newsletters
|
Family Integrity # 150 -- Cheque this out
|
Dear Friends,
Please cheque this out (pun intended):
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/action_alert_/anti_smacking_bill.html
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 148 -- Vote in poll
|
Dear Friends,
Please be sure to vote on today's (Tuesday 21 Nov) Stuff poll at:
http://www.stuff.co.nz
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 147 -- Press Release - Criminalisation of Parents Confirmed
|
At last MP Sue Bradford has been forced to admit her real objectives of her bill to repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee's report shows it was not to reduce violence but to hamstring parents.
The committee has re-written Section 59 so that it lists the occasions when reasonable force can be used by parents with their children. This categorising of legitimate uses of force was something Bradford consistently railed against as totally unacceptable. But she has helped delineate and describe four situations. Three of those have to do with preventing behaviour that might lead to harm, crime or is offensive or disruptive. The fourth simply allows parents to use reasonable force for "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting."
But the re-write specifically and pointedly prohibits reasonable force to be used if the motivation is to correct.
Parents are to be legally prohibited from correcting their own children! How revealing of Bradford's purposes! The original Section 59 only allows the use of reasonable force for one reason: correction. Bradford's new version of Section 59 only specifically prohibits the use of force for one reason: correction.
Correcting children with force of any kind, however light, is specifically prohibited. Yet part of parenting is teaching right and proper behaviour and speech, teaching manners and etiquette, teaching grooming and modesty, teaching right from wrong, good from bad, wise from unwise. Reasonable force can be used to stop some but not all bad behaviour the parents may want to stop. But nothing in this law appears to allow parents to use force to get the child to behave in a way the parent may require or that culture, tradition or societal norms expects. This new Section 59 allows the use of reasonable force to stop some types of bad behaviour, but does not allow the use of force to enforce the performance or practise of any kind of good behaviour.
The standard of public behaviour will obviously sink to the lowest level generally acceptable, since parents will not be legally allowed to force children to maintain higher standards. Disobedience and disrespect will blossom. Those who feed on such dysfunction can see a bonanza on the horizon: it was as if this legislation had the future welfare of counsellors, psychologists, lawyers and the exploding numbers of child and family advocacy and interventionist groups in mind.
This Bill has become totally unworkable. It shows that the purpose has nothing at all to do with violence or excessive force against children, which things are already illegal. The purpose of this bill all along has been to repeal parental authority over their own children, to minimise and compromise a parent's ability to correct, train or discipline his or her child to act, dress or speak to any standard imposed by the parent.
Correction of children is to be illegal. This is absurd. It is insane.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 146 -- Committee report is out
|
20 November 2005
The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has released its report on
Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
The report can be read at:
http://tinyurl.com/yk49lh
The bulk of it is spin doctoring of the issues and not at all helpful.
The guts of it is that they recommend replacing the present Section 59
which says:
(This is Section 59 as it stands today):
"Domestic discipline- (1) Every parent of a child and...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."
The select committee wants to replace Section 59 with the following NEW,
AMENDED Section 59:
59 Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of
the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in
the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care
and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the
use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
There are a number of major problems with this:
1. The title "Domestic Discipline" is being repleaced by "Parental
Control". Criminal law will no longer recognise that parents should
discipline children but only control them and then only in certain
ways approved by this law.
2. The first way a parent can be justified in using reasonable force,
(1)(a), is already legally allowed in the Crimes Act by Sections 41 &
48.
3. The justification of stopping offensive or disruptive behaviour in
(1)(c) does not specifiy if such behaviour needs to be
offensive/disruptive to the parents, any others present, others not
present but toward whom the behaviour was directed, bystanders,
passersby, a police officer or the judge and jury when it comes to
trial. Or perhaps it could be offensive or disruptive to the child,
according to the parent.
4. Subsection (2) specifically says force is not to be justified, even
by established common law precedent, for the purpose of correction. Here
at last Bradford's intention from the start has been clearly stated:
that parents should be prevented by law from correcting their own
children.
5. Points (1)(a), (1)(b), & (1)(c) all justify force used to prevent
something. No part of this new Section 59, including point (1)(d),
appears to justify force used to make the child do something he should,
to behave in a way the parents insist upon. Reasonable force can be used
to stop some but not all behaviour the parent may want to stop, but
nothing in this law appears to allow parents to use force to get the
child to behave in a way the parent requires.
6. Since Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1), if it can be shown
that force was used that could more properly be defined as "for the
purpose of correction" than to prevent offensive or disruptive
behaviour, the parent's use of force will not be justified and instead
will of necessity be classed as assault.
Part of parenting is teaching right and proper behaviour and speech,
teaching right from wrong, good from bad, wise from unwise. Will this
law allow me to make my child apologise to anyone? To address elders by
using "Mr" or "Mrs" or "Dr"? To conform to any standards that we parents
are convinced they need to conform to in dress, grooming, speech and
behaviour if it cannot be called offensive or disruptive? Can parents
legally correct children's bad grammar or slang? Will we be able to
enforce modest dress standards or rules of etiquette and manners? Will I
be able to force my son to let the ladies go first? Will I be able to
force my daughter to wear something longer than a miniskirt? What if my
child refuses to ring me as I have insisted, to check if I approve of
the video his friend is suggesting they watch? Can I stop him from
visiting a friend at all if going over there is not obviously harmful,
is not a criminal offense, is not offensive or disruptive but I simply
think the other household is a bad influence?
This Bill has become totally unworkable. It shows that the purpose has
nothing at all to do with violence or excessive force against children,
which things are already illegal. The purpose of this bill all along has
been to repeal parental authority over their own children, to minimise
and compromise a parent's ability to correct, train or discipline his or
her child to act, dress and speak to a certain standard imposed by the
parent.
According to this Bill, children are not to be corrected if it involves
the use of any kind of force, no matter how light or reasonable.
Correction of children is to be illegal. This is absurd. It is insane.
Write, email, ring your MPs and tell them this bill is crazy and has to
go.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 145 -- Press Release sent today
|
14 November 2006
MP Sue Bradford is in self-destruct mode as she makes incriminating remarks in a form letter trying to justify why she voted to keep the lower legal age for purchasing alcohol:
“Clearly, there are a wide variety of factors that impact on the harms caused by alcohol, that simply cannot be and will not be addressed by simply raising the purchasing age. . .
“I am not prepared to strip away the legal rights of a section of the
community on the basis of research that is not definitive. Nor will I use
the law to take away rights when there is no evidence that the law will be
effective.”
If you transpose these statements into the context of the debate over the repeal of section 59, you will see that Ms Bradford is most definitely “prepared to strip away the legal rights of” all parents and to do so “on the basis of research that is not definitive,” (in fact, even in the face of good research by Dr Jane Millichamp of Otago University and only recently released, to the contrary).
She is also quite willing to “use the law to take away rights when there is no evidence the law will be effective” in reducing the prevalence of child abuse.
She is happy “simply” to ban reasonable force in the correction of children, rather than address the “wide variety of” real and observable “factors” that lead to child abuse and family violence, namely, alcohol and substance abuse; family breakdown (which means many children grow up in homes where one of their natural parents, usually the father, is replaced by a stranger); graphic violence on the TV, computer, and cinema screens, and in video games; and bullying in public schools. These factors are crying out to be addressed, but Sue Bradford’s simplistic answer is: ban all use of reasonable force from normal parenting, ie. strip away the legal rights and protection of all parents! Criminalise the lot, she says. It seems in her book parenting is not a complex issue and a blanket criminalisation of "reasonable force" is not simplistic. Yeah. Right.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
|
Family Integrity # 144 -- Help Protect families from Bradford's anti-smacking Bill - Section 59
|
Greetings
Yes, the Select Committee reviewing the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is meeting 16 November between 9:00 and 10:00 am. Then on Monday and Tuesday 20 and 21 November the Select Committee will meet together to finalise what they are to present to the MPs. They are due to report back to the MPs on November 22, 2006. So this is what we can be doing:
1. Take a look at this Family First website. Bob is calling for people to advertise in papers: Protect parents from Bradford's anti-smacking Bill. Would you be willing to SPONSOR one of these advertisements in your local newspaper OR in a major newspaper? Click here for more information
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/action_alert_/anti_smacking_bill.html
2. Once the Select Committee reports back to Parliament Wednesday 22 November, the final vote could happen before December 14. 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 lobbying the MPs.
Please forward this email to friends, family, neighbours and to the members of the groups that you are involved in. 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 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 persecution 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 mightily 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 mightily 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. 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 next: 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 that 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.
8. 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 and put "Count me in" in the subject line.
9. 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.
|