Join Us

New form

Family Integrity #130 -- Less than 3 weeks to go - Section 59 - What can we be doing now?.

Within THREE weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This is supposed to happen by 31 October 2006, but could happen before then. 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. Here are some ways:


1. CALL TO REPENTANCE AS A NATION As we get very near to the 2nd reading of Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act we need to remember that this is God's battle not ours. It may be God's Will for Section 59 to be repealed, perhaps as a sort of judgement for turning away from God and His word. As we suffer persecution the Church will be purified. Perhaps this can all be avoided. 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 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 AD 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 AD 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. Here is King Alfred's War Song

When the Enemy comes in a'roarin' like a flood
Coveting the kingdom and hungering for blood,
The Lord will rasie a standard up and lead His people on,
The Lord of Hosts will go before defeating every foe;
defeating every foe.

For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.

Some men trust in chariots, some trust in the horse,
But we will depend upon the name of Christ our Lord,
The Lord has made my hands to war and my fingers to fight.
The Lord lays low our enemies but he raises us upright.
He raises us upright.

For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.

A thousand fall on my left hand, ten thousand to the right,
But He will defend us from the arrow in the night,
Protect us from the terrors of the teeth of the devourer,
Imbue us with your Spirit, Lord, encompass us with power;
encompass us with power.

For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.


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 and from the violence which was in his hands.

We might yet see God's hand keep Section 59 from being repealed.

2. The Select Committee will be meeting for their final time on THURSDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2006 12:25pm to 1:00pm and will be reporting back to Parliament sometime after that. The second reading could be before October 31. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing/visiting/phoning/faxing 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. While we are praying for the Select Committe as they discuss their recommendations to the MPs regarding the repeal of Section 59 let us also be praying for the Case of the Seven Children that Ruby Harrold-Claesson spoke of so often while she was in New Zealand. Seven children were taken from their parents because the father "disturbed the peace" of his children in 2003. He spent one month in jail and the children were put into care - taken from the mother even though she was not involved. The father was found not guilty but the children were not returned. The family is in 4 differrent places at the moment. Ruby is still waiting to hear the verdict on this case. This is what Ruby said in an email this morning 11/10/06: "Sorry, no verdict as yet. However, yesterday I received a new decision from the social workers forbidding all telephone and other contacts between the father and the handicapped son, who by the way has been moved to seven different homes since October 16, 2003 when he was removed from the loving care of his parents."


5. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!

Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

PS From previous countdown emails: 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 all three DVDs, Broadband users - (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users - (1 min 37 sec)

5. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs

6. 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
7. 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.

8. 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)


9. 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.

10. 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 # 129 -- Pansy Wong wants to hear from you


Well, friends, MP Pansy Wong is here asking for our opinions. Let's give them to her.

(www.pansywong.co.nz)
(www.national.org.nz)

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00166.htm
Pansy Speak: A logical debate about smacking
Wednesday, 11 October 2006, 9:25 am
Column: New Zealand National Party
A logical debate about smacking
Judging by the large number of emails asking me to support or vote
against the 'anti-smacking' bill, the deadline for a decision must be
just around the corner.
The contentious bill in question is Sue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of
Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, which
repeals Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 allows parents or guardians who are facing charges of using
force against a child the legal defence that the force is justified as
long as it is reasonable in the circumstances.
Over the past 10 years there have been a handful of reported
high-profile cases where parents or guardians were acquitted of charges
by using Section 59 as their defence. This left many us dumbfounded
because bruises or welts were clearly visible on the tiny bodies shown
in the photos.
These high-profile cases have served as the catalyst for this bill and
have led to vigorous debate.
The debate has been extended to the 'cycle of violence' and the need for
this to be broken. It's difficult to argue against this, and most people
would agree that no violence should be inflicted on children.
I doubt very much that in cases where Section 59 has been used as a
defence that the parents or guardians involved knew that there was such
a defence open to them. It's more likely that their legal counsel came
up with the defence after the violent act was carried out.
Therefore, revoking this clause could serve as punishment for those
offenders but I doubt that scratching the clause from law will act as a
deterrent to those who use force against their child. In most cases
where children are the victims of violence they live in horrific
circumstances where drugs, alcohol, dysfunctional relationships and
poverty are all a part of daily life.
This bill offers the blunt option of revoking Section 59, which only
offers two choices, change or maintaining the status quo. In two recent
polls, one in Stuff and other published by The Dominion Post, 84% and
82% respectively supported retaining Section 59. Other polls have also
reflected this trend.

The Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Unit study has
also shown that parents and guardians are able to deliver appropriate
physical discipline.
Some 1,000 children have been tracked since they were born in Dunedin
during 1972 and 1973. The latest interview was conducted in 2004 when
the study members were 32 years old. Eighty per cent said they'd been
physically punished at home during their childhood, 29% had been only
smacked, 45% had been hit with an object such as a strap or wooden
spoon, and 6% had suffered extreme physical punishment.
The study also found that the 29% who were only smacked had 'similar or
even slightly better outcomes', in terms of aggression, substance abuse,
adult convictions and school achievement, than those who were not
smacked.
Those who support repealing Section 59 argue that 'smacking' a child
would not lead to parents or guardians being charged because that
decision would be with the police. There is an assumption that common
sense will prevail, yet, if that was true then offenders who had left
cuts and welts on their children's body wouldn't be acquitted under the
current legislation. So much for common sense!
Do we really want our over-worked police to be called in to decide
whether to prosecute, or not, each time a case is reported? Involving
police in domestic situations without clear guidance will only make the
situation even murkier and undermine the goodwill that exists between
police and the communities they work in.
How will making our police define what's smacking, and what's not, move
the debate along any further? It only pushes the issue further down the
line because it's not resolved.
In the current climate, where the Government is increasingly interfering
with our personal lives, many are fed up with the notion that they can't
be trusted to exercise their own judgment.
What do you think? Should Section 59 be repealed or not? Is there a
middle ground for this issue? Please email your thoughts to
pansy.wong[at]national.org.nz

Pansy Wong

www.pansywong.co.nz
www.national.org.nz



Family Integrity #128 -- I'll pull my Bill -- Yes, please!


I'll Pull My Bill, Bradford Warns


http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=340851&catid=32

11:57 am, 11 Oct 2006
Green MP Sue Bradford warns she will withdraw her bill removing
protection for parents who physically discipline their children if a
parliamentary majority tries to dilute it by defining reasonable force.

As a select committee considers whether to change the bill before
reporting it back to Parliament at the end of the month, Otago
University researchers have published a study finding that children who
are smacked lightly with an open hand grow up unharmed.

Opponents to the bill say it will criminalise good parents who
occasionally smack or restrain their children, and Ms Bradford has
already said she would consider an amendment to make clear that parents
who restrain their children to protect them or others are not breaking
the law.

However, she said today it would be "very, very dangerous" as a result
of this sort of research to try to define what sort of hitting or
smacking was acceptable.

Trying to define reasonable force would be the worst thing that could
happen to her Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child
Discipline) Amendment Bill, which would amend the Crimes Act to remove
the defence of reasonable force should a parent be charged with
assaulting their child.

She said she would withdraw the bill if there were the numbers in
Parliament to support a definition of reasonable force, built around
open-handed smacking.

"It would destroy the bill, and I would withdraw it," she told National
Radio.

"Any attempt to define what is acceptable use of force against violence
children actually undermines everything we are trying to do," she said.

It would not protect children, but would give parents a blueprint of what
was acceptable violence and undermine education programmes.

"And basically it would make the law even worse by saying our society
actually condones these forms of violence against children, these are
okay."

The research did not change the rationale for her bill which was to
completely repeal Section 59 of the act so violence against children was
not legitimised.

She was quite happy to agree that children who got the odd light smack
were probably not harmed, but looking at one act of violence on its own
was not enough, she said.

The select committee was trying to write the bill to reassure parents
that the intention was not to have parents who occasionally smack their
kids prosecuted.

Ms Bradford said she did not know if there was enough support for the
bill to pass a second reading.

Some parties are giving their MPs a conscience vote on it.



We could hardly ask for more! Continue to apply pressure to your MP to dump the Bill.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 127 -- CEOs often smacked as children


CEOs often were spanked as children

http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/BUSINESS/610100318/1040

From StatesmanJournal, Salem, Oregon

Question arises of paddling's role in achievement

BY DEL JONES
Gannett News Service

October 10, 2006

The debate about whether CEOs are born or made remains unresolved, but there is one thing they overwhelmingly have in common.
As children, they were paddled, belted, switched or swatted.
Child psychologists wince at such a finding. They warn that spanking slows mental development and achievement. They say the last thing parents need in the back of their minds is a suggestion or justification that the rod is the road to vision, ruthless drive and other leadership traits common to CEOs.
USA Today interviewed about 20 CEOs during three months and, although none said they were abused, neither were any spared.
Typical is General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, 53. He got an occasional "whack in the fanny," while growing up in Richmond, Va., but said he had it coming and that it probably had no influence on his life as a high achiever.
"I probably deserved it more," Wagoner said.
The Securities and Ex-change Commission does not require CEOs to disclose childhood paddlings, so USA Today ambushed them with the question during interviews about other topics.
A handful declined to respond, but most CEOs answered, albeit through forced smiles.
"Very, very rarely," said Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers, 56, the son of two doctors. "I'm from Charleston, West Virginia. My dad was firmer than my mom."
Some CEOs had more heavy-handed parents. Dave Haffner, the CEO of Fortune 500 manufacturer Leggett & Platt, said he was familiarized with his father's belt about six times per year. That includes the time Haffner, then 8 or 9, kicked down the screen door after his brother locked him in the basement.
Is there some connection between corporal punishment and corporate leadership? Most CEOs think spankings played little or no role in their success but usually could cite important lessons learned. "I'm disciplined, detailed and organized," Haffner said.
Mark Cuban, 48, says he was spanked one or two times but does not remember why. He went on to become worth $2.3 billion, rich enough to buy toys such as the Dallas Mavericks NBA team.
"I got the 'this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you' speech from my dad. I don't think spankings influenced my life one way or the other," Cuban said.
A generational thing
University of New Hampshire sociology professor Murray Straus, the author of "Beating the Devil Out of Them," has been studying corporal punishment since 1969 and says it comes as no surprise that almost every CEO was spanked. They mostly grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. Although the systematic use of corporal punishment has declined, 90 percent of toddlers still are spanked at least once, he says, and a 1998 Gallup Poll found that 55 percent of parents agreed with the statement "A good hard spanking is sometimes necessary."
But Straus said evidence points to corporal punishment as detrimental. If some spanked children grow up to be successful, even billionaires, it's like saying, go ahead and smoke because two-thirds of smokers don't get lung cancer, he said.
Incidences of CEO spankings go well beyond anecdotal research. Re-tired General Electric CEO Jack Welch wrote in his 2001 memoir, "Jack: Straight from the Gut," that his mother, Grace, was the family disciplinarian. When Welch skipped altar-boy practice, she whacked him with a shoe.
Eve Tahmincioglu interviewed 55 CEOs about their backgrounds for her book "From the Sandbox to the Corner Office: Lessons Learned on the Journey to the Top." The book includes chapters about things such as how CEOs attacked their first jobs and how they overcame bad bosses, but chapter one is called "Parents: Less Carrot, More Stick."
She found that most CEOs had tough disciplinarians as parents. Among those who told Tahmincioglu that they had been spanked were Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, Shell Chemicals Executive Vice President Fran Keeth, Alliant Energy Resources former CEO Erroll Davis, SCO Group CEO Darl McBride and United Way CEO Brian Gallagher.


Have you written/emailed your MP today yet?

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity #125 -- Press Release and audio track by Family Integrity


http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/845783

Smacking may be beneficial

Oct 7, 2006

Lobby group Family First is taking heart from new research suggesting a
smack with an open hand does not harm children, or lead them to become
aggressive or antisocial.
The Dunedin multi-disciplinary study, which has tracked 1000 children
since 1972, found parents who were lightly smacked as children tend to
handle their own kids in much the same way.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says it is evidence the
anti-smacking bill should be dropped.
McCoskrie says the home-grown research shows a smack with an open hand
does not do harm and can even be beneficial.
McCoskrie says there is a huge difference between a light smack and
child abuse and most parents are aware of that.



Family Integrity # 124 - roughly 4 weeks to go: Section 59 - What can we be doing now?


Monday 2 October 2006

Greetings
Within FOUR 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. 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. Here are some ways:


1. This is the response we received 27/9/06 for the questions "Can you please provide me with the total number of written submissions received on the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill? Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the number of submissions for and against the Bill?"

"The committee received a total of 1718 submissions on the bill. We have not prepared a breakdown for the committee of the numbers of submitters who support or oppose the bill and I am not able to provide that information."

Cath Anyan, Clerk of Committee, Justice and Electoral Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Email:

cath.anyan@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: +64 4 471 9245, Fax: +64 4 473 0127, www.parliament.nz

We thought it would be important to have a break down on the numbers for and against the bill. Perhaps it is time for a writing campaign to challenge this committee to do their job properly and without bias, especially in light of the committee meeting 5 October.

2. It looks like the Select Committee will be meeting to begin formulating their recommendations on Bradford's Bill to the MPs on THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing to our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413

3. Click on this link to see the Letters to the Listener Editor this week:

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3465/letters/7156.html

and last week:

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)

4. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. Look particularly under the "Sweden" button http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/589946 to see what has been happening there. eg The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death - Chris Beckett and AN UNNECESSARY LAW - The Day, Editorial, November 11, 1978 plus more.

5. Email from Steve in Hamilton:

'We will be having a special time of prayer to seek God's purposes for this Bill. We will also be asking Him for wisdom (James 1:5) as He knows best what is good for His people. Please join us in praying for these things and the eternal salvation of those who are promoting this Bill. After all, what will it benefit anyone for eternity if all that happens is that we argue over this Bill. Let's first and foremost use it as an opportunity to teach people that there is an eternal God who they will one day answer to for all they have done."

Let us be praying constantly and fasting up until and including 5 October when this committee begin their meetings to discuss Repealing Section 59 for God's Will to be done.


While we are praying for the Select Committe as they discuss their recommendations to the MPs regarding the repeal of Section 59 let us also be praying for the Case of the Seven Children that Ruby Harrold-Claesson spoke of so often while she was in New Zealand. Seven children were taken from their parents because the father "disturbed the peace" of his children in 2003. He spent one month in jail and the children were put into care - taken from the mother even though she was not involved. The father was found not guilty but the children were not returned. The family is in 4 different places at the moment. This is what Ruby said in an email to us today:
"I am quite bogged down with the case with the seven children. The case will be heard on Oct. 5." Let us be in prayer for this family and for this case hearing on October 5.


6. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!

Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

PS 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 all three DVDs, Broadband users - (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users - (1 min 37 sec)

3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. e.g. Bradford's "Creative" Use of Stats dial up - (2 min 12 Sec)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
and then read this article:

http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm.

5. 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.



Family Integrity # 123 -- roughly 5 weeks to go


27 September 2006

Greetings
Within FIVE weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The second reading of the Bill will occur sometime after that. Therefore time is running out. We all need to act now. 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. Here are some ways:

1. Have you seen www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz 's new DVDs on Section 59 yet? Take a look at this link either using Broadband or dial up:

Advert for all three DVDs, Broadband users - (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users - (1 min 37 sec)

2. It looks like the Select Committee will be meeting to come up with their recommendations on Bradford's Bill to the MPs on THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing to our MPs. For ease use this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413

3. The result of the Listener Poll last week was

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason

Click on this link to see the Letters to the Listener Editor this week:

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/letters/7097.html;jsessionid=3068FC987B4219A4C584BD4661CDFA97
(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)

4. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs.

5. If you have still not done any of the above then read this article:

http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm
This will also give you some good information for writing to your MPs. So go back to 1 above.

6. Dare I say if you still have not done anything then read this article:

Should Reasonable Correction Of Children Be Illegal? - An Article About Michael Drake's New Book
7. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Bradford's Bill must be stopped! Be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

PS 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 DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825

3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. e.g. Bradford's "Creative" Use of Stats dial up - (2 min 12 Sec)

http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/uploaded/Bradford_Bill-Bull_56k_dialup.wmv
4. If you have not already then read this article in last week's Herald - "Parents should sit licence test, say experts."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922


 

Newsletters # 113 - 122

Family Integrity # 122 -- Section 59 - What can we be doing now?

Friday 22nd September 2006

Greetings
Within 6 weeks the Select Committee will have reported back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Possibly soon after that will be the second reading of the Bill. Therefore time is running out. We all need to be acting now. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Here are some ways:

1. Read this online book (just released) 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 DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825 (might take a minute to load)


3. Vote in this weekly Listener poll** : http://www.listener.co.nz and read the articles in this week's magazine. (Letters to the Editor are weclome, via email, letters@listener.co.nz, or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address.)


4. Write to the Editor of the Listener*** (see below for ideas) then turn that letter into one for your MP or all of the MPs using this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413

5. If you have still not done any of the above then read this article in today's Herald - "Parents should sit licence test, say experts." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922 Then go back and start at 1. again

6. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the Editor. e.g. Bradford's "Creative" Use of Stats dial up - (2 min 12 Sec) http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/uploaded/Bradford_Bill-Bull_56k_dialup.wmv

7. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Bradford's Bill must be stopped! Be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!

Blessings
Barbara www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

**This poll is relatively unscientific and should be treated as such. It is just indicative.
It will be quoted at various stages of s59 debate though so it would be good if you all voted in it.

***Just a bit further to this email. We were very happy with Joanne Black and what she wrote about us. She was constrained by her Editor who wanted more of the repeal side in the article.

Things that we think would be good to write to the Editor and your MPs about are:

Hands Off

1. page 15 Sue Bradford says "a child's right to be free from violence..." Section 59 is against violence

2. page 17 Borrows this time "We don't want to provide people with a recipe for beating their kids and getting away with it" Section 59 does not allow parents to beat their kids.

3. page 17 Sue Bradford talks of people giving submissions where they were beaten as children. Section 59 does not let people beat their children. It is against the law to beat children.

4. page 17 "Bradford, Borrows and Dunne are critical of aspects of the debate on the bill so far, especially from opposition Christian groups...." It has been the way the media has represented the Christian groups that has not been good.

5. page 19 Sue again "most people who have battered their kids, sometimes to death but more often so they are hospitalised..." Section 59 is no cover for this. This is abuse and homicide and there are laws against this.

6. page 19 Sue wanted to call this the anti-beating bill. Sue is wrong the media is right. It is an anti-smackiing bill and a bill to repeal parental authority. Beating is already against the law.

Page 16 - Zero Tolerance

7. Dr Dawn Elder - "abused children" - this is against the law already. Section 59 is about protecting abused children - Section 59 must be reasonable in the circumstances. Abusing children is not reasonable.

8. "Violence in Families" - Which families. Dysfunctional families, not good loving families who use force by way of correction to train their children. (See my oral submission on www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz )

9. "Child abuse cases, including fatalities" these are child abuse and homicide and are already against the law. This is not a controlled smack for training and correction.

10. "This punishment has in most cases been delivered by caregivers who have a problem controlling their anger." This again is child abuse. When parents use force by way of correction and it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is not done in anger.

11."verbal and physical violence" is child abuse and is against the law/

12. Elder again "Smacking is not an effective form of discipline". It is very effective and quickly restores relationships.

13. Elder again "When it (smacking) is done in anger, which most people would admit it often is". Only those who are abusing their children are doing it in anger. When smacking a child to correct and train it the parent is in perfect control.

14. "Putting children on an equal footing with......dogs" Is that how they see children. Dogs are trained, this bill will not allow for children to be trained. Children will be under the footing of dogs if they repeal Section 59.

15. Yes lets have zero tolerance to child abuse but let us train our children using reasonable force which is reasonable in the circumstances.

16.DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER
Elder wants to help parents who smack and wants to make sure that it does not happen again. WHICH MAY REQUIRE REMOVING CHILDREN FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR A WHILE,......

WE DON'T WANT SECTION 59 TO BE REPEALED. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND TO YOUR MPs asking them to keep section 59

I had better stop - there is more though look at "Death by Discipline" this is Child Abuse. This is nothing to do with Section 59.

Please write letters, emails, visit, txt, the Editor of Listener and your MPs.



Family Integrity # 121 -- 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 motivate 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


Family Integrity # 120 -- Ideas for Letter to Listener


Just a bit further to Family Integrity #119 about writing to the Listener editor. We were very happy with Joanne Black and what she wrote about us.
She was constrained by her Editor who wanted more of the repeal side in the article.

Things that we think would be good to write to the Editor about are:

Hands Off
1. page 15 Sue Bradford says "a child's right to be free from violence..." Section 59 is against violence
2. page 17 Burrows this time "We don't want to provide people with a recipe for beating their kids and getting away with it" Section 59 does not allow parents to beat their kids.
3. page 17 Sue Bradford talks of people giving submissions where they were beaten as children. Section 59 does not let people beat their children. It is against the law to beat children.
4. page 17 "Bradford, Borrows and Dunne are critical of aspects of the debate on the bill so far, especially from opposition Christian groups...." It has been the way the media has represented the Christian groups that has not been good.
5. page 19 Sue again "most people who have battered their kids, sometimes to death but more often so they are hospitalised..." Section 59 is no cover for this. This is abuse and there are laws against this.
6. page 19 Sue wanted to call this the anti-beating bill. Sue is wrong the media is right. It is an anti-smackiing bill and a bill to repeal parental authority. Beating is
already against the law.

Page 16 - Zero Tolerance
7. Dr Dawn Elder "abused children" this is against the law already. Section 59 is about protecting abused children - Section 59 must be reasonable in the circumstances. Abused children is not reasonable in the circumstances.
8. "Violence in Families" - Which families. Disfunctional families not good loving families who use force by way of correction to train their children. (See my oral submission on www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz)
9. "Child abuse cases, including fatalities" these are child abuse and are against the law. This is not a controlled smack for training and correction.
10. "This punishment has in most cases been delivered by caregivers who have a problem controlling their anger." This again is child abuse. When parents use force by way of correction and it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is not done in anger.
11."verbal and physical violence" is child abuse and is against the law/
12. Elder again "Smacking is not an effective form of discipline". It is very effective and quickly restores relationships.
13. Elder again "When it (smacking) is done in anger, which most people would admit it often is". Only those who are abusing their children are doing it in anger.
When smacking a child to correct and train it the parent is in perfect control.
14. "Putting children on an equal footing with......dogs" Is that how they see children. Dogs are trained, this bill will not allow for children to be trained. Children will be under the footing of dogs if they repeal Section 59.
15. Yes lets have zero tolerance to child abuse but let us train our children using reasonable force which is reasonable in the circumstances.
16.DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER
Elder wants to help parents who smack and wants to make sure that it does not happen again. WHICH MAY REQUIRE REMOVING CHILDREN FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR A WHILE,......
WE DON'T WANT SECTION 59 TO BE REPEALED. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND TO YOUR MPs asking them to keep section 59

I had better stop there is more though look at "Death by Disciple" this is Child Abuse. This is nothing to do with Section 59.

Please write letters, emails, visit, txt, the Editor of Listener and your MPs.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity # 119 -- Listener Article


Smacking is the subject for the front cover of the Listener this week.

http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
We'd like to suggest a strategy to kill a couple of birds with one stone.

Get a copy of the current Listener and read the articles. Write a letter to the Editor of the Listener, pointing out the many untruths in the articles. Section 59 is an excellent piece of legislation. When a child is beaten to death that is the ultimate abuse, it is not a form of discipline. One of the logical conclusions from the articles is to ban all discipline of children....which in fact repeal of Section 59 will effectively accomplish.

www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the Editor.

After writing the letter to the Editor then turn it into a letter to the MPs and send it to all MPs
Using this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity #117 -- Tribute


8 September 2006

Grab some tissues and read this incredible tribute to the late (Crocodile Hunter) Steve Irwin's mum that Steve himself wrote.

Sue Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 says this woman was violent and should have been charged with criminal assault for ruining her child Steve with her violent and humiliating methods of discipline.

Steve's mum was buried with many honours and many tears from grateful people. Steve will be buried in the same way.

Bradford's Bill needs to be buried too....but for different reasons: it is totally detached from reality.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



This tribute can be found at:

http://www.australiazoo.com.au/australia_zoo/index.html
(Click "Lyn Irwin Memorial Fund" on index at left)

Way, way back in February of 1962 I was born right fair smack on my Mum's
20th birthday. Crikey! A birthday present she'll never forget. The umbilical
cord of our souls was never cut, to this very day I am connected to my Mum,
I cry for her now, I'll cry for her forever.

I know pain, I've been busted up, smashed up, hospitalised. My body has been
traumatised and injured for over 40 years, but the pain of losing my Mum is
unbearable and relentless. There is no medication - just tears.

I am crying so hard writing this that the paper on which I write is
saturated. Oh God this hurts. My daughter Bindi came in one door as you went
out another. My son baby Bob will never know you - here is real, fair dinkum
pain.

You come to me in my dreams; your spirit is with every wedge tailed eagle; I
feel your breath in the westerly wind, but most of all I see your genes in
my princess Bindi and my baby boy Bob.

My Mum was killed in a car crash in the year 2000. She was the Mother
Theresa of wildlife, a saint, and she will be remembered forever.

I loved my Mum more than anything in the world. She nurtured, protected, and
loved me all my life. Lyn Irwin was a true "Australian Pioneer Woman",
dedicating her entire life to the rehabilitation and conservation of both
the wildlife and her family. Every single day she worked and toiled to save
injured and orphaned joeys while maintaining a happy healthy Irwin clan.

Oh gosh! I miss you, Mum. I miss you every minute of every day, and the pain
of losing you tears my heart out. But I'll stay strong; I promise you I'll
stay strong - for it was you who taught me to be a "Wildlife Warrior".

You worked with me for thirty-eight years to help me become the man I am
today. You suckled me, changed my nappy, packed me off to school, blessed me
with a career that is my whole life, cried with me when my pet snake died,
belted me with your shoe when I was really naughty, fought for me, protected
me, pushed me forward when the going got tough, and raised me to fight for
the preservation of wildlife until the day I die.

I've adopted your strength, your passion and enthusiasm, your dedication and
commitment, and will honour your presence by continuing to push forward as
hard and fast as I possibly can, to ensure the survival of our precious
wildlife, the wilderness, and in essence, the human race. For without fresh
water, trees, animals, and ecosystems, the world we know would not support
human life; it would be an ugly, awful place. The spirit of Lynette Leslie
Irwin, Lyn Irwin, my Mum, lives forever. Every time you see a sick, injured,
orphaned animal, you'll see Lyn. I love you; I miss you, I long to be
reunited with you.



Family Integrity #116 -- Unicef tells lies


Press Release sent 26 Aug 06.

UNICEF tells lies.

Lie No. 1: (The purpose of s59) is “Essentially, to exempt parents from retribution for assaults upon their children if they meet a standard of reasonableness.” What idiot would ever believe that the MPs who composed the Crimes Act in 1961 had that in mind? Facts: Section 59 recognises and acknowledges that parents have a duty and responsibility to correct their children and that such correction and discipline can require a reasonable use of force that should not be criminalised. Section 59 says the use of force is justified as long as two limiting factors are in place: the motivation must be “by way of correction” and the force used must be “reasonable in the circumstances”.

Lie No. 2: “What is 'reasonable force'? It is whatever a judge or jury says it is.” This is really an implied lie: that “reasonable force” is something else, but UNICEF failed to reveal what they believe it is. Fact: In UNICEF’s ideology, reasonable force is no force at all. To them, any use of force, however light, is by definition violent abuse. (See UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 8, June 2006 at ). UNICEF wants to impose its extremist ideas by stealth on to every judge, jury and parent in the land from this day forward.

Lie No. 3: “Section 59 has very little to do with smacking and much to do with providing legal shelter for people who assault children in painful, dangerous and humiliating ways.” UNICEF again slurs the MPs of 1961 by accusing them of holding these repulsive motives. Fact: The MPs of 1961 were wiser than UNICEF for they understood that without Section 59, parents would commit criminal assault, according to the definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act, if they hug a child without the child’s permission, take the child by the hand to make it go with the parents, confine the child to its room for time out and countless other everyday acts of parenting. Section 59 is all about parental authority: repeal Section 59 and parents will lose legal recognition of their authority to correct or train or discipline their own children. The authority will pass to the state or to “professional” agents…such as UNICEF. They want your children.

Lie No. 4: “This archaic law has been used in New Zealand to protect adults who've beaten children with planks of wood and riding crops.” Facts: the repeal lobby can only ever use three or four cases in all of NZ legal history, none of which help their case at all unless they twist or leave out the details. Neither child in these two cases was beaten: they were smacked in a judicial and controlled manner. The plank of wood was 30x2cm, the size of a standard school ruler. The riding crop was applied with only two strokes, the child submitted voluntarily to the smacking, it restored family relationships and the school community could hardly believe the improvement in the boy’s behaviour. Section 59 is used as a defense less than two times per year in New Zealand, and most of the time, rather than hiding abuse, the caregiver is found to be guilty. Section 59 operates exactly as it should: nailing true abuse and protecting normal parents from charges of criminal assault for reasonable corrective action.

Lie No. 5: “The alarmist story that repeal of section 59 will 'criminalise' good parents has been shown by the sensible response of the police to have been the worst kind of scare-mongering.” Fact: the letter from Dr Jack of the Police Commissioner’s office of 11 August 2005 (described by current Police Commissioner Howard Broad as “accurate and authoritative”) declared simply that if Section 59 is repealed, “smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault,” and “parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction.” There you have it plain and simple: even Sue Bradford’s “light smacks” are acts of assault and the use of reasonable force is unauthorised, outside the law, legally unjustified. Just as driving over 100 kph is a criminal activity, whether you are charged or not, so using any force, reasonable or not, will be a criminal activity. And being engaged in a criminal activity means you can be charged at any moment. Another letter from Joanna Bond, Legal Advisor to the Police Commissioner dated 11 July 2006, the one UNICEF is referring to as “the sensible response”, included extracts from the Police Manual of Best Practice wherein the first line reads: “The state has a duty to prosecute people who engage in criminal activity.” The letter assumes throughout that parents using force have committed a criminal act of assault and describes the way they will be investigated and the ways they may or may not be prosecuted.

Lie No. 6: “There will be no increase in convictions of parents if repeal goes ahead.” Fact: since the threshold for charging parents with criminal assault drops to zero-tolerance, there will have to be a rather large increase in investigations, prosecutions and convictions. Unless the Police cease to enforce the law. Or unless the Police pass all such matters over to CYFs who have the power to remove your children first and ask questions later. Once CYFs gets involved, life as you knew it comes to an end. And the real child abuse begins the moment any strange social worker enters your home and takes your child away from you merely because she believes “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child or young person is suffering, or is likely to suffer, ill-treatment, neglect, deprivation, abuse, or harm” (Section 39, Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989).

UNICEF and others resort to fabricating untruths because they are desperate to see Section 59 repealed. Why? Because it will destroy parental authority and allow these “child advocacy” groups greater and easier access to other people’s children. It will ensure that parents are shoved into a back-seat position so that these groups gain more prominence, more counselling contracts and more clients.

(Family Integrity Press Release above is based on this UNICEF release below.)

UNICEF NZ Issues S59 Challenge To City Councils
Friday, 25 August 2006, 3:41 pm
Press Release: UNICEF
MEDIA RELEASE
UNICEF NZ ISSUES CHALLENGE TO CITY COUNCILS
Yesterday (24.Aug. 2006) UNICEF New Zealand issued a challenge to every Mayor in New Zealand:
Lead the way and do what is right for New Zealand's parents and children.
Support the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
David Kenkel, the UNICEF Advocacy Manager for New Zealand, said:
‘We are delighted that some City Councils have already acted so strongly to support the parents and children of New Zealand. We congratulate Porirua Council and Waitakere Council on their farsighted community leadership.
We have also just heard the fantastic news that New Zealand's biggest council, Auckland City, have added their support by voting last night to support the repeal of Section 59. We have a great deal of respect for this council's solid commitment to the principles and practices of care for children, in line with New Zealand's obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).
It is wonderful to see Councils being so committed to the wellbeing of their communities. We want to thank these Councils on behalf of New Zealand's children.
Now we are waiting to see what action will be taken by the other Mayors and Councils of New Zealand'.
ENDS
(The Email message that was sent out to New Zealand's Mayors and Council CE's follows as body of the Email)

SUBJECT LINE: UNICEF' challenge to community leaders
This is an opportunity for local communities in New Zealand to lead the way
As you may know Porirua city council has already voted in support of the repeal of section 59 of the crimes act. Waitakere city council has issued a statement asserting their support for repeal.
Auckland city council is about to vote on the same issue.

Section 59 of the crimes act states:
'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.' (S59 Crimes Act 1961) What is the purpose of s59 of the Crimes Act 1961?
Essentially, to exempt parents from retribution for assaults upon their children if they meet a standard of reasonableness.

What is 'reasonable force'?
It is whatever a judge or jury says it is.

Section 59 has very little to with smacking and much to do with providing legal shelter for people who assault children in painful, dangerous and humiliating ways.
This archaic law has been used in New Zealand to protect adults who've beaten children with planks of wood and riding crops.
International and New Zealand research on children and discipline show that striking children does no good and can do much harm. Hitting children is demonstrated to be the least effective form of discipline and the vast majority of parents who are honest and brave enough to talk about it admit that when they have hit their children it is more to do with frustration, desperation and anger than anything reasonable.
New Zealand needs to be committed to its parents and recognise that parenting is one of the hardest jobs of all. Being a good parent doesn't mean being perfect, but it should mean aiming to do what works rather than justifying and excusing what doesn't work. This law doesn't help New Zealand parents or New Zealand children. It sanctions what's worst rather than encouraging what's best.
The alarmist story that repeal of section 59 will 'criminalise' good parents has been shown by the sensible response of the police to have been the worst kind of scare-mongering. There will be no increase in convictions of parents if repeal goes ahead.
What will change is that we as a nation will do a better job of facing up to what we need to do better.
We at UNICEF New Zealand ask you as community leaders to do what's best for New Zealand's parents and children. Support repeal of Section 59 and send a clear message to parliament to do the same.


Family Integrity #115 -- Children's Commissioner Fibs


Dear Friends,

What do you make of this?

Thursday 25 May 2006 was the first sitting of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to consider submissions on MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59. Ten submitters presented talks, all for the Bill.

The final presenter was the Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro. One of the Committee members pointed out to her that the letter from Dr Jack of the Office of the Police Commissioner (Rob Robinson at the time) of 11 August 2005 to Family Integrity made it clear that any smacking would be an assault. Kiro then said she contacted the Police Commissioner (she didn’t say when or which of the three men who’ve held the Commissioner’s position in the past year) who said he hadn’t “signed the letter off” and that he wasn’t happy about it. This prompted Committee member Ann Hartley to exclaim, “Oh, I didn’t know that letter was unauthorised.”

I wrote to the new Police Commissioner, Howard Broad, on 22 August 2006 and asked if he considered the letter of 11 August 2005 to be accurate and authoritative. His reply to me dated 23 August said, “I have reviewed the letter sent to you by Mr Jack on 11 August 2005 and his advice is both accurate and authoritative.”

In my book, when someone says something to deliberately create a false impression, it is known as telling a lie. It is a direct violation of the 9th Commandment (You shall not bear false witness - Exodus 20:16). That a false impression was given was remarkably well confirmed and enunciated on the spot by Labour MP Ann Hartley (“Oh, I didn’t know that letter was unauthorised”).

If the Commissioner had a case for repealing Section 59, you wouldn’t expect she’d feel the need to stoop to such tactics.

Attached is all the correspondence.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity #114 -- Press release re EPOCH


25 August 2006


Press Release
For Immediate Distribution

EPOCH NZ said yesterday (in their press release below) they are greatly reassured by the Police Commissioner's latest statement as to how the Police would respond to parents using even minor physical punishment with their children should Section 59 ever be repealed. The Police confirmed that even minor physical punishment would be worthy of an investigation for assault. The Police Commissioner wrote to Family Integrity last year to say not only light physical punishment but any form of force by way of correction would not be authorised by law.

EPOCH said the same in their own newsletter of July 2005: “If section 59 is repealed, parents could be charged with assault if using any force for the purposes of correction.” Please note: a charge of criminal assault can arise from the use of "any" force, not just "minor physical punishment".

So EPOCH have confirmed again a parent’s nightmare: that any form of force by parents toward their children for correction, training or discipline would be a criminal act of assault, not only worthy of a police investigation with all its attendant stress and trauma on the children, the marriage and the family, but possibly worth as much as two years in jail according to Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.

Time out or carrying an objecting child to bed or making a child eat something specific or change out of certain clothing or holding a hand to make the child go with you will all become criminal acts of assault. This is certain and undeniable, given the definition of assault from Section 2 of the Crimes Act. And after all, if a stranger could not use even reasonable force to do any of these to your child, you will not be allowed to use force to do any of these to your own child either, precisely as Sue Bradford intends according to her Explanatory Note in the Bill itself.

EPOCH are greatly reassured because the Police have confirmed they will not go lightly on parents who would dare to discipline their own children. Repeal of Section 59 will be disastrous for New Zealand families.

Craig Smith
National Director



Family Integrity #113 -- EPOCH's press release today


Dear Friends,

Well done to all who have appeared before the Select Committee about this Bill! To those who are appearing this Monday 28 August, here are some tips: Stick with what you know for sure and are convinced and passionate about. It sounds to me like an awful lot of people are going to be asked to make their submissions on that day and I would fully expect to be lumped in with several other people and your "group" given 20 minutes to speak. The first in the group will most likely take the longest and the rest will be given the hurry along, shaving your individual time to 2 or 3 minutes. We've seen it done at the Hamilton venue and people in Auckland said the same happened there. Barbara and I each have individual presentations to make that very morning of the 28th of August and have been told we each have 10 minutes. So we'll have 10 minute and 3 minutes versions ready to go.

I think what is really needed right now is non-stop pressure on MPs from hundreds of concerned parents against this bill. EPOCH came out with a piece of propaganda on SCOOP and in the Herald today (24 August) saying the Police have said things which should assure parents they won't be charged willy nilly. The police have said nothing of the sort. Smacking and time out and hugging (a form of discipline the opposition favor second after time out) and carrying to bed and making a child eat this or change that piece of clothing or apologise to a neighbour for breaking the window and making the child pay for it will all become criminal acts of assault. (If you cannot use "force" to make an adult do any of these things, you cannot use force on your child to make him or her do it.) This is certain and undeniable, given the definition of "assault" from Section 2 of the Crimes Act (see below). These actions will become chargeable offenses. Whether they will be charged is another issue. It depends upon how they come to the notice of the Police. Far more than we'd care to think about will be investigated, with all the attendant stress on marriages, families, children, etc. In addition, a growing number will go on to court cases since, if Section 59 is ever repealed, and there is NO LEGAL DEFENSE for any act of physical discipline, the police will be under increasing pressure to uphold the law by those whose agenda is to wipe physical discipline off the land. Below are some excerpts from a June 2006 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the group who polices the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) which show they equate physical discipline, however light, with violence and abuse. This is where the pro-repeal lobby gets its rhetoric, so you can see where this is going.....please note that in paragraphs 31 & 34 quoted below, it is clear that they equate corporal chastisement, corporal disciplne, reasonable correction, etc., with corporal punishment, "however light", which is condemned as violence and abuse by definition (their definition) and therefore must be legislated against.

Parental authority is being attacked here. If they can wrench Section 59, which is titled "Domestic Discipline", from the law, parents will be unauthorised by law to discipline in any physical way whatsoever. Again, this is undeniable fact. The letter to me from the Police Commissioner last year confirmed that and this recent communication with EPOCH changes none of that. If parents are unauthorised to use any kind of physical discipline, who then can? Agents of the state can, in particular police and social workers and whomever they appoint, such as Barnardos and Plunket and the Children's Commissioner, etc.

This is very serious indeed. Please write to your MP at least once a week until the second reading.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


1. From Section 2, NZ Crimes Act:
“Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.”



UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Excerpts from General Comment No. 8, June 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo)
1.This General Comment focuses on corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, which are currently very widely accepted and practiced forms of violence against children.

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, as required by the provisions of the Convention.”

11.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. Most involves hitting (”smacking”, “slapping”, “spanking”) children, with the hand or with an implement.

20.Article 19 and Article 28(2) do not refer explicitly to corporal punishment. The travaux preparatoires for the Convention do not record any discussion of corporal punishment during the drafting sessions. But the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time.

29.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.

31.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” or “moderate” chastisement or correction), in their homes/families or in any other setting.

34.In addition, explicit prohibition of corporal punishment…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”.

39.But it should be made explicitly clear that the criminal law provisions on assault also cover all coporal punishment, including in the family.

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

 

Newsletters # 109 - 112

Family Integrity #109 -- Ruby's Tour 1

Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson arrived in NZ on July 19 just after 5am after 36 hours of travel. TV 1 & TV 3 were scrapping over who would have her first, one spitting the dummy and saying they wouldn’t have her at all. They both had appointments with her on the 20th, but ended up filming her on the 19th, same day she arrived, after she also did three other media interviews.

Some elements of the media decided to use July 19 to fabricate a story about a pamphlet I wrote two years ago, saying it promoted smacking children for 10 to 15 minutes. What the pamphlet actually said was parents should take 10 to 15 minutes to determine if a smack is even necessary. (It’s on our website at www.familyintegrity.org.nz ….click “Christian Corporal Correction”). The fabrication has travelled to many countries, and I received phone calls from Australia and the USA wanting to know more.

Ruby had more media interviews on Thursday and Friday, 20-21 July, then flew to Wellington on Saturday. That night in Upper Hutt was the first of five public meetings, the second one being in Porirua Monday. Also on Monday Anna Chalmers of the Dominion Post cancelled the interview she’d arranged. She rang back Wednesday afternoon wanting an interview. She knew we would be leaving for the airport at that time and asked a series of dumb questions, so Ruby just cut her off. Anna and the DomPost were abominable throughout, leading the others in twisting the facts and digging up truly unqualified people in Sweden who were happy to say that Ruby was unqualified. The fact is, Ruby’s mastery of four languages, her knowledge of law in France, Sweden and European law put her way out in front of most other Swedish lawyers. Incidentally, Swedish universities have recently ruled that a person must be employed by the University, on its payroll, in order to gain their PhD at that university…..so much for academic freedom!

Tuesday 25 July Ruby met with the Family Commissioner, Rajen Prasad and with Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro. Both are totally fixated on repealing section 59 and would not entertain any notion that drugs, alcohol, TV violence, the abortion industry or school bullying were more urgent issues to pursue in order to really deal with domestic violence. She met with 14 MPs that evening.

Wednesday we did a lot of filming for a DVD featuring a lengthy interview with Ruby that will be available shortly. Flew to Hamilton and Ruby appeared before the Select Committee there on Thursday 27 July. Again, the DomPost fabricated a story about a large police and security guard presence due to a tip-off of potential violence plus demonstrators clapping and stomping feet at Sue Bradford. Well, we were there, Anna Chalmers wasn’t. There were no police present and the only clapping (no foot stomping) was spontaneous applause on two or three occasions when the individual submitter’s presentation against Bradford’s Bill was exceptionally impressive. There was also a group of seven 12 & 13 year-old school girls who each wanted to keep Section 59, saying they knew their parents loved them when they smacked them, only they suggested amendments to rule out smacking in certain places.

There was a public meeting in Hamilton, one in South Auckland and another on the North Shore. Ruby also met with Pacific Island leaders and the Auckland District Law Society. Before she flew out of NZ on Tuesday 1 August, Ruby also took in some NZ Culture at Rotorua’s Tamaki Village and also got to see live Kiwi, Tuatara, Wood Pigeons, Tui, Kea and other critters, plants and geothermal activity.

Ruby totally loved her time here and constantly talked of coming back with her husband Håkan (pronounced hoe-can). We found Ruby so gracious, polite and unassuming that her many talents and specialist knowledge came out gradually over her time here and not all at once at the beginning. She is thoroughly delightful and New Zealand can be glad that someone with her total and fearless commitment to justice and truth came here to lift the cover on the official whitewash about the Swedish situation that has fooled us all for so long.



Family Integrity #110 -- Ruby's Tour 2


Greetings all,

Barbara and I just finished touring parts of NZ with Jamaican-born Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson. It has been a real education. We have gained quite an insight into the Swedish psyche and the way that particular society expects its members to behave.

One of the silly arguments advanced by the repeal lobby is that children should be given the same rights as adults. They obviously don’t mean what they say, for they are not suggesting children be allowed to vote, sign contracts, smoke or drink. Well, Swedish society has gone down this track of extending more and more “rights” to children and has been forced to become extremely tolerant of childish behaviour to the point of what most of us would call irresponsible indulgence: rudeness, disrespect, disobedience and more are allowed to go unchecked except for some verbal admonition.

We have also learned how intolerant Swedish officialdom is toward those who would criticise the system. Sweden has for many years now prided itself on being the world leader in progressive social experiments: free sexual expression of the 1960s, increasing socialised benefits over several decades (resulting in Sweden being the most highly taxed nation on earth), the world’s first legal ban on smacking, etc. So when people such as Ruby, being an outsider of sorts, makes it her habit to dispassionately and more objectively observe and report on what goes on there in a negative light, officials at almost every level close ranks to defend their international reputation.

Same thing happens here in Kiwiland, we’ve found. When someone like Ruby comes over here and not only shatters a favoured myth about conditions in Sweden held by the ruling liberal elite (from Helen Clark downwards) but also shows how loosely and “creatively” this elite handles the truth, they take shots at the messenger from Sweden rather than listen to the message from someone who obviously knows better than they simply because they don’t like the message…..it doesn’t support their agenda.

The political machinations the opposition has shown us as a result of Ruby’s visit here are very instructive: the one-eyed commitment of the present political elite in New Zealand to the repeal of Section 59 is so strong, we must conclude they have a larger agenda in mind. They have said time and again that repeal of Section 59 is only a small step and only a first step in a larger strategy to supposedly eliminate child abuse. While we all applaud moves to eliminate child abuse, it is false logic to say repealing Section 59 (which embodies parental authorisation to use “reasonable force by way of correction”) is a step in this direction: “reasonable force” is clearly not abuse. Children who go uncorrected will bring harm and angst to themselves and others. Such children will become targets for both frustrated parents and officialdom who will be called upon to sort them out, using force, since the parents cannot legally do so. And we all know that if CYFs gets involved in a family, life as that family knew it comes to an end. The resultant abuse to the family’s integrity - the child removed to a foster home and the parents charged with criminal assault - such legal, institutionalised abuse is far, far worse than any use of “reasonable force by way of correction”.

Helen Clark, Sue Bradford and others have held Sweden up as an example of social structure for us to copy. They have not exposed the full story: Sweden is a Socialist dictatorship. The Social Democrats have been in power for 50 years. The populace do as they’re told. Opposition is suppressed and even various expressions of difference are marginalized. State experts are assumed to be right, and because children are assumed to belong to the state, natural parents are not trusted as much as foster parents, the latter being well-paid agents of the state.

The Swedish state wants a certain outcome in its society. Just like in a chemistry laboratory, to get the desired results, you must control all the variables. So Swedish authorities are working to control all the social variables in order to get a peaceful and harmonious society. New Zealand’s political leaders have been doing the same thing over recent years. They see repeal of Section 59 as absolutely key since this one little clause in the law is what gives parents legal recognition that they, and not the state, have primary authority over their children.

The sodomite lobby has also said that they see repeal of Section 59 as key, for if parents will not fight to retain their authority over their own children, neither will they fight homosexual marriage and adoptions, hate speech legislation, de-criminalising other sexual perversions.

Specific Fibs
Let me clear up some of the criticisms the pro-repeal lobbyists have refused to clarify, no matter how many times we told them. Ruby is not a member of the Swedish Bar Association. Hundreds of Swedish lawyers do not belong to the Bar…it is not a requirement to practise law in Sweden. Ruby has never applied to join the Bar. In addition, one must also have a certain high level of income to join. Ruby does a lot of work for free. She is owed a lot of money by the provincial court of western Sweden for legal aid work she has done. But when she took a holiday to Jamaica in 1996 and criticised the Swedish system on Jamaican television, she returned home to Sweden to a local work ban: her home provincial court system refused to appoint her as legal aid lawyer, saying she was an “inappropriate” (not an incompetent) lawyer. They also refused to pay for the legal aid work she had been doing for some time up til then. She is free to represent clients in western Sweden otherwise and there is no work ban in the rest of Sweden.

Bradford tries to say repeal of Section 59 will stop violence against children the way repeal of similar legislation in Sweden back in 1957 reduced child deaths at the hands of their parents to “one every four years”. Ruby claimed that such deaths happen at the average rate of seven a year and have done since at least 1966. When we visited Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro with Ruby, Dr Kiro confirmed that Ruby’s figures were correct and Bradford’s were not. “In Sweden, many people believe that children have not been subjected to violence since the ban on corporal punishment was introduced, but this is not true,” said Sweden’s Children’s Ombudsman, Lena Nyberg, in an article in Sweden’s The Local dated 5 May 2006 titled “New Child Abuse Commission after Bobby Death”. In the same article Morgan Johansson, Sweden’s public health minister, said, “Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years.” So it is actually worse than Ruby was saying.

Some Swedish expert, a psychologist, was interviewed on NZ radio recently and said that since 1957, when Sweden’s equivalent of our Section 59 was repealed, only one parent had been charged with the crime of smacking. It has also been pointed out, by Ruby whenever she speaks, that the 1979 ban on smacking was in Sweden’s civil code and did not carry any penalties or legal sanctions. And so it is not even possible to bring such charges to courts. But what the media fail to point out or fail to understand is that with such laws in place, parents are then exposed to being charged with assault and battery under various criminal codes. This is precisely what happens. Ruby tabled 41 cases, copies of official rulings against parents in Swedish courts, at her hearing before the select committee. The psychologist is not a lawyer….which perhaps explains why he knows little about what actually goes on in Swedish courtrooms. In addition, Ruby has practised Swedish lawyer for 20 years.

Here is a quick outline of the legal history. The equivalent of Section 59, giving parents a defense from a charge of criminal assault against their children of having used reasonable force by way of correction, was repealed in Sweden in 1957. In 1966 they changed a law which said parents must curb their children to read parents must correct their children. In 1979 a law was added to the civil (not the penal) code banning smacking and any belittling treatment of children. In 1998 a law was introduced making gross disturbance of the peace a crime. Under this law parents have been charged and children removed for a non-specific accusation that the parents had hassled the children or imposed their will on the child at some unspecified date and time in the past in a way unwanted by the child.

The cumulative effect of these laws is that many parents are afraid to correct their children in any way. Children are coached in preschool onwards that they do not have to put up with any discipline from their parents but only need to report them to a teacher, social worker or police to make the parents stop. (What the children are not coached in are the implications to their family’s integrity and relationships of making such a report…more on this later.) To give a child “time out” is a crime for the child may suffer mental and emotional stress, and it is a form of physical punishment since the child is separated from the physical presence of his family. Of course when the authorities separate a child physically from his family for weeks and months at a time and place the child with total strangers, that is not seen as abuse but as protection. You must apologise to a child for disturbing his peace, lest you be charged with this crime, when you drag the child from in front of a truck on the road or when prying a huge kitchen knife from his hands.

There has developed a thinking within the Swedish social services that most parents are near-incompetents and can hardly be trusted. This is evidenced by the number of children taken into care: over 20,000 in a country of 9 million, a rate 4 times higher than New Zealand. To mind all these children, an army of over 300,000 social workers has arisen plus thousands of foster homes. These can be either obvious institutions or private homes, but all are well-paid. Qualifications are very low, just like New Zealand’s cases of foster children being placed in gang headquarters and brothels. According to Ruby, these foster agents are rarely investigated for abuse they commit against their charges. This is due to the Swedish sense of self-righteousness: the state system is best, it is at the apex of human social development….it can do no wrong. New Zealand’s social welfare system also suffers from this blindness: when they get it wrong, they are loathe to admit it or correct it for such admissions of error damage their professional credibility.

This kind of administrative and institutionalised child abuse is the worst part of this whole anti-smacking scenario: it gives power into the hands of strangers to the children who not only have no personal care for the children, but stand to gain materially from interfering in their lives. Since parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force to correct, train or discipline their children if Section 59 is repealed, its repeal dramatically lowers the threshold at which social workers can justify intervening into private family affairs. Ruby says fostering is big business: it keeps the social workers in green as well as foster agencies, lawyers and psychiatrists. Each of these groups has a financial interest in seeing the problem expand, not decrease. And once a child has been in care for three years, the state may rule that it be forcibly adopted out.



Family Integrity #111 -- Forum with Bradford/Dunne/Smith


Khandallah Presbyterian Church is holding a Forum on the proposed amendments to Section 59 of the Crimes Act, now commonly referred to as "anti-smacking legislation". I confirm that the date for the Forum is Monday, 28th August 2006 at Khandallah Presbyterian Church, 33 Ganges Road, Khandallah (opposite New World Supermarket) starting at 7.30pm. It is a public Forum, with entry free to all people who wish to attend, and it will be recorded for broadcast on Radio New Zealand, on the programme "Spiritual Outlook" at 5.00pm on Sunday, 17th September 2006.
I propose that the format for the Forum be as follows:
Sue Bradford, Green Party, who has proposed the amendment in Parliament, be invited to speak first, followed by Craig Smith of the Home Education Foundation, representing Family Integrity, and finally Peter Dunne, our local MP and member of the government. Each speaker will be invited to put forward their position regarding the proposed legislation in a speech of up to seven minutes, following which members of the audience will be invited to ask brief and pertinent questions of any or all of the speakers. The Forum will be chaired by Dr Maureen Garing, host of the "Spiritual Outlook" programme and Session Clerk of Khandallah Presbyterian Church.
It is my hope that the evening will give the speakers the opportunity to present to the public their respective positions regarding this sensitive and significant legislation in a full and fair way. I am deeply appreciative of their willingness to participate in this Forum.
Reverend Fraser Paterson
Minister, Khandallah Presbyterian Church.
kpchurch@xtra.co.nz




Family Integrity #112 -- Sodomite agenda link to Section 59


You may remember the statement by the New Zealand sodomites saying how they see the repeal of Section 59 as a test for how much opposition they will get when they start pushing their agenda more vigorously (I've reproduced the statement below the following article). Here is an alert from the USA revealing what the sodomite agenda is there. We can expect all this and more here if we lie down and let Section 59 go without a fight. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said this kind of battle is raging all over the world. Britain fought it to a bit of a stalemate with an amendment which didn't clarify but only muddied the waters. Canada managed to keep their equivalent to Section 59 (which has almost identical wording). So what happens here in NZ is being watched keenly by activists all over the globe. Please write your MP to keep Section 59 intact and not pass Bradford's Bill to repeal it and get your friends and neighbours to do the same.

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


August 14, 2006
Democrats help block marriage protection amendment

Party goes on record in support of homosexual marriage
Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage . They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy.

Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.

Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.

The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal . DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.

The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.

LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.

Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.


GayNZ.com
Comment: Section 59: A Social Conservative Retreat?
25FEB06 - Craig Young
Have LGBT community efforts led to a considerablely weakened Christian Right effort
against Sue Bradford's Section 59 Repeal Bill? What does this have to do with us, one might
ask.
Lesbian feminists have had longstanding involvements within the child protection profession.
Added to which, this particular political initiative is the first real test of opposition to the
Christian Right during this political term, and will disclose what condition they might be in
for later reform initiatives, like transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws and adoption
reform legislation. It has strategic significance to us.
With the Bradford Bill, the Christian Right is facing one of its worst nightmares. What do
they do when professional opinion is heavily stacked in favour of repeal legislation? Simply,
the answer is: what Christian Right? Family Integrity, Christian News, Garnet Milne and
SPCS are plugging away there still, but there are severe constraints on the opposition. The
Maxim Institute put together an anemic looking brief guide to the private members bill in
question, without even providing background information, or links to anti-repeal websites.
Conservative Catholics are nowhere to be seen, preferring to prioritise their anti-euthanasia
activities.Moreover, there are geographical limitations. Family Integrity/Christian News are based in
Palmerston North, while Garnet Milne squats malignantly in Wanganui, as minister of the
Reformed Fellowship of that provincial city, and opposition seems website-based and virtual.
Unlike the Civil Union Act debate, there have been no public meetings, no anti-repeal
petitions, or even widespread distribution of anti-repeal propaganda.
If there is a public presence, it belongs to the children's health and welfare groups that
dominate the debate. They have distributed pro-repeal brochures, and and have attracted
support from the Body Shop, now distributing a pro-repeal petition.
Bluntly, the Christian Right response has been pathetic. Because they lack anyone credible
with experience in pediatrics or developmental psychology, there has been resort to
predictable populist attacks on pro-repeal medical professionals as members of a sinister
'elite' opposed to 'traditional families,' who are attacking the parental 'right' to belt kids.
Again, this is significant to us. Pediatric and child development specialists will also be
relevant to LGBT debates around adoption law reform, when our time finally arrrives. Then
there's the inevitable conspiratorial approach, in which an unrepresentative group of 'activists' has seized control of pro-repeal child health and welfare groups. No, pro-repeal child health and welfare groups are basing their case on coalface professional practice, and evidencebased research derived from that practice.

No matter, National's so-called 'family' spokesperson, Judith Collins, is once again pandering
to the fundamentalist lobby over this issue. "Parenting is not an academic issue," she whines.
Sue Bradford and Ruth Dyson replied that if she wasn't going to listen to professional prorepeal
opinion, then what did she base her opinions on? One can only hope that John Key
abolishes this ridiculous shadow portfolio when he takes over as Leader of the Opposition, if
all Collins will ever do is listen to unrepresentative social conservative lobby groups, and
ignore evidence and practice-based professional research on family policy issues. Including
ours.
I still predict that the Christian Right will lose this one. There's nothing like the opposition
that existed to either the decriminalisation of sex work or LGBT relationship recognition.
And if it works for Section 59 Repeal, then what about Georgina's transgender protection bill,
and eventual inclusive adoption law reform?
Given this bill’s importance as an index of the strength of the Christian Right, I recommend
that there is an influx of LGBT supporters who support Bradford and reform proponents
throughout this process. Write submissions and support her bill.
Recommended:
www.greens.org.nz
If you want to help Sue Bradford's repeal efforts, email her at: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.
nz
Not Recommended:
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
www.christiannews.co.nz
www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
www.section59.com
www.spcs.org.nz
ENDS
GayNZ.com
http://www.gaynz.com/
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1206&print=yes (2 of 2)6/1/2006 2:36:31 PM

 

Newsletters # 98a - 107

Family Integrity #107 -- Swedish Lawyer condemns anti-smacking legislation

Public Meetings with Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Swedish Lawyer:

22 July: 7:30pm - Public Meeting - Upper Hutt
venue: Reformed Church of Silverstream, 8 Blue Mountains Road, Silverstream, Upper Hutt
contact: Jos (04) 971-9187, landkroon@paradise.net.nz

24 July: 7:30pm - Public Meeting - Porirua,Wellington
Venue: Hosanna Fellowship, cnr Warspite Ave and Driver Cres, Porirua.
contact: Renton Phone (04) 237-8481 or 021 069 4492, clearsight@xtra.co.nz

27 July: 7:00-9:00pm - Public Meeting - Hamilton
venue: Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street, Hamilton
contact: Jim (07) 847-7955, swkloeg@hnpl.net

29 July: 7:30pm - Public Meeting - South Auckland
venue: Guides Manukau Centre, 68 Everglade Drive, Manukau City
contact: Paul and Brenda (09) 266-5389, hill.billies@paradise.net.nz

31 July: 7:30pm - Public Meeting - North Shore Auckland
venue: Birkenhead Primary, 77 Mokoia Rd, Birkenhead, Auckland
contact: Mark (09) 410-3933, cesbooks@intouch.co.nz

Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Swedish Lawyer - being brought to NZ by Coalition Section 59

Ruby Harrold-Claesson runs a private law firm in Gothenburg. She works with family law, e.g. guardianship cases and cases dealing with parental rights, criminal cases etc. Ruby Harrold-Claesson has referred several cases of breaches of Human Rights to the European Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Ruby defends families in Sweden who are being prosecuted and who are having their children taken from them under the Swedish no-smacking legislation. Ruby says the destruction of families in Sweden is horrendous.

"It has ruined families and ruined children. The children in Sweden are incredibly badly behaved. They have no discipline at home and no discipline in schools. I have seen a child kick his father repeatedly and all that man could say was 'you shouldn't do that'. I've dealt with cases where parents are so frightened of imposing any form of discipline that they have given up all responsibility; they say 'I can't stop my child running around at night, so if something happens to them it's not my fault'. As far as I'm concerned parents are adults, and adults decide what is a reasonable level of discipline. By taking away their ability to do that, you breed a new generation of wild, ill-disciplined Vikings - and that is what we have here. We in the Nordic Committee of Human Rights are completely against child abuse. We say this law is unnecessary because there has always been a law to punish child abuse - assault and battery. This law saying a parent should not smack their child goes beyond all rhyme and reason."


She has founded and chairs the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, http://www.nkmr.org/english/index.htm

She is coming to NZ to testify before the NZ Select Committee. Ruby is being brought out by Coalition Section 59, a group of over 200 concerned Community and Lobby groups and families, including Family Integrity, Society for Promotion of Community Standards, Family First Lobby, Sensible Sentencing Trust, NZ Centre for Political Debate, For the Sake of our Children Trust, PANIC, s59.org and others.

Ruby will be in New Zealand from Wednesday 19th July until Monday 1st August.

For Ruby's programme please visit:

Ruby Harrold-Claesson's Public engagements (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292

Ruby Harrold-Claesson's full schedule (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/846694

We plan to make a high quality DVD of Ruby's time in New Zealand. Her two meetings in the Wellington area will be videoed plus there will be fireside interviews with Ruby. We will be selling this DVD for $10.00. We also plan to give each MP a copy of the DVD.

Don't forget to vote in these 4 polls:

http://www.stuff.co.nz

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/

http://www.tvnz.co.nz/view/page/

http://kf8.pollhost.com

Please pass this email around to all your friends, family and relations. We need to get the word out about what is happening in Sweden from someone who lives there and has lots of contact with families having trouble with the Social Welfare system because they have used reasonable force with their children by way of correction.

Regards
Craig and Barbara Smith
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
on behalf of Coalition Section 59


Family Integrity #106 - Swedish lawyer's schedule in NZ


Dear Friends

We are rejoicing at the fantastic response to the appeal for funds for Ruby Harrold-Claesson to come to New Zealand to speak to MPs, Media and NGOs.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson will be arriving in New Zealand July 19 and returning to Sweden August 1.

We decided that we needed to get experts on the job for this so asked Bob McCoskrie from Family First www.familyfirst.org.nz and David Lane from the Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. www.spcs.org.nz to help us make the most of Ruby Harrold-Claesson's time in New Zealand. Bob's strength is Media lobbying and David's strength is MP lobbying. So we formed the s59 Coalition which also includes the Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz), PANIC (www.panic.org.nz), New Zealand Centre for Political Debate (www.nzcpd.com) and http://Section59.org. They are doing a great job. You can keep up to date with what we are doing by visiting these two pages:

Ruby Harrold-Claesson's Public engagements (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292

Ruby Harrold-Claesson's full schedule (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/846694

We think that the best use of Ruby Harrold-Claesson's time while in New Zealand is to meet with the Media, as many MPs as possible and as many NGO's as possible. Thank you to all those who have made offers to host her in your town and in your home. Sadly we won't be able to take up most of your offers. We will mainly be centered in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington. The above pages for Ruby's public engagements and full schedule are all the confirmed activities; there are many more still to be confirmed.

The s59 Coalition will be continuing to lobby MPs after Mrs Ruby Harrold-Claesson leaves New Zealand. We would also like to visit as many places around New Zealand as we can (sometimes with others) to encourage people to:

1. Pray for God's will to be done

2. Encourage people to write to their MPs

3. Encourage people to visit their MPs

4. Run workshops on training parents in the Biblical Discipline of their children.

5. Continue to raise funds for the fight to keep s59 of the Crimes act in place and unchanged. We have contracted Ed Rademaker for 30 hours a week to help with this and need to raise the funds to pay him $12.00 per hour..

We would like to keep the momentum up in the Media and with the MPs right through until the Second Reading of the Crimes Act, which could be in November this year. If you have any ideas, we would love to hear from you. Are you doing anything special that others could be doing? Then please let us know so that we can pass it on. Please continue to pray that Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) will not be repealed or altered in any way. We thank you again for your generous contribution.


(If the internet links above are ot working, copy and paste them into your internet browser.)

Regards

Craig and Barbara Smith

www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz



Family Integrity #105 - The source of the rhetoric


The Bill to repeal Section 59's author, MP Sue Bradford and Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro get their rhetoric from extremist pronouncements of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 requires her to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but not necessarily to swallow everything the UN Committee says.

The Convention makes no mention at all of corporal punishment, corporal discipline or smacking. Even so, the Committee has released its “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.” Note that this extremist Committee says that corporal punishment is just one “other” form of “cruel and degrading” punishment. It gets worse. In paragraph 11 it says, “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.”

First this Committee goes way outside of and beyond the Convention by trying to prohibit corporal or physical punishment. Now it says children should have legal protection from physical force intended to cause pain or discomfort, however light. How light is that? Perhaps so light that it causes no pain or discomfort at all. Maybe so light the child is barely aware of it. And yet this is assumed by the Committee to be “cruel and degrading” by definition. And it still needs to be legislated against. This is extremist. It’s effect is to do away with physical force altogether.

This is what will be accomplished by Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59 which says parents are justified in using physical force as long as it is for correction and is reasonable in the circumstances. If Section 59 ever goes, any smacking, any force at all by way of correction, training or discipline - however light - will be legally indefensible. Parents’ efforts to correct, train or discipline children with any physical force - however light - will be threatened at all times with a potential criminal charge of child assault, worth as much as two years in jail.

Bradford is at pains to make this very point in her Explanatory Note to the Bill where she says that after repeal parents “will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act”. With those few words Bradford reveals her trident of radically anti-parent purposes: to strip parents of their unique authority over their own children; to reduce parents’ position of responsibility to that of any passing stranger; and to threaten them 24/7 with criminal assault charges. Charming.

You can read this latest UN Committee document for yourself, all 17 pages of it, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo

Craig S. Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity #104 -- Call for Kiro Sacking


28 June 2006

Press Release
For Immediate Publication

Call for Kiro’s Sacking

Family Integrity calls on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Social Development David Benson-Pope to sack Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for continual abdication of duty.

“Dr Kiro’s response to the violent deaths of the Kahui twins by calling for a ban on smacking is completely detached from reality,” says Family Integrity’s National Director Craig Smith. “She appears consistently incapable of seeing her duty as spelled out in the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.”

The Act requires the Commissioner to have regard to three things: 1) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC); 2) the views of children; and 3) the diversity of New Zealand children.

UNCROC says in its preamble that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” Yet the Commissioner has chosen to ignore this directive and does nothing to stop the yearly 17,000 intentional killings of these children before their birth. Instead she is obsessed with banning smacking. What kind of twisted thinking considers a few smacked bottoms as more worthy of legislative action than the constant blood stained reality of thousands of dismembered babies’ bodies?

Neither does the Commissioner regard the views of the unborn child while its parents and doctors and nurses are planning its death. Dr Kiro does not seek any professional advice on what these children’s views might be nor seek to appoint advocates for these children. She has, however, publicly declared that she ignores them.

These 17,000 aborted babies represent a very large diversity of children that the Children’s Commissioner Act requires Dr Kiro to regard and that UNCROC Article 2 says she cannot ignore: “States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s….birth or other status.” The child’s pre-birth status is not to be used to discriminate against the child.

“Sadly, Dr Kiro appears both unable and unwilling to even consider the most helpless and innocent members of our society as persons worthy of her attention,” said Mr Smith. “New Zealand’s children deserve better than that. Dr Kiro deserves the sack.”


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity #103 -- Spanking Swedish Bottoms


Spanking Swedish Bottoms

In 1979, Sweden outlawed spanking. Or corporal punishment, to use the vaguely military term preferred by lawmakers. The Swedish Parliament did not bother to specify the punishment for this offense, for as Julian V. Roberts of the University of Ottawa writes in Child Abuse & Neglect, "the principal goal of the Swedish reform was to change public attitudes toward corporal punishment." As two of the chief ideologists of the ban-spanking movement put it, "law shapes and confirms public values"; "cultural norms are changeable and...legislation can be a key tool in enacting such change." Yet as Roberts found, this law has had no such effect in Sweden.

Swedes are not ignorant of the prohibition: by 1981, just two years after its enactment, a poll found that almost all adult Swedes knew that spanking had been banned. Nevertheless, the ban seems to have had no effect on public opinion, which in Sweden had turned against corporal punishment some years earlier. Since 1965, the Swedish Opinion Research Institute had asked Swedes if they agreed with the statement, "A child has to be given corporal punishment from time to time." In 1965, 53 percent of Swedes agreed; by 1968, the number had fallen to 42 percent, and in 1979, the year of the spanking ban, only 26 percent answered in the affirmative. If in fact laws shape norms, one would expect that the percentage of Swedes who favor corporal punishment would have decreased since 1979, but nothing of the sort has occurred: in fact, in 1995, more than one-third of Swedes (34 percent) endorsed corporal punishment in a different survey. Moreover, in a 1991 study more than half (51 percent) of Swedish mothers admitted using physical punishment-a number that was almost certainly depressed by the fact that the women so confessing were acknowledging the commission of a crime. "[I]f anything," writes Roberts, "public support for corporal punishment has increased" since the ban.

Proposals to outlaw spanking are afoot, or should we say have reared their head, in many Western nations, including Canada, Germany, Spain, and New Zealand. Whether one believes in the efficacy of a hard spank or not, the evidence from Sweden is clear: the laws don’t work anyway.

(Source: Julian V. Roberts, "Changing Public Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment: The Effects of Statutory Reform in Sweden," Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 24, No. 8 [August 2000]: 1027-1035.)




Family Integrity # 102 -- Carey College submission


Dear Friends,

I've just read through the oral submission of Carey College (principal, Michael Drake). It is brilliant.

A one-page summary is at:

http://careycollege.com/education/currentissues/?id=451
and full text at:

http://careycollege.com/education/Oral%20Submission%20Full.pdf

This full text is well worth reading. VERY encouraging.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity #101 -- Ruby to talk of negative Swedish experiment


On Scoop:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00170.htm

Swedish lawyer to speak on effect of smacking ban

Friday, 16 June 2006; 12:43 pm

Press Release: Family Integrity

16 June 2006

Family Integrity Press Release
For Immediate Distribution

Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, coming to New Zealand next month, will be the most qualified person ever to speak in New Zealand on the effect of Sweden's smacking ban on that country's social fabric.

Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba in Canada has been to New Zealand twice reporting on her research trips to Sweden - all paid for by the Swedish government. Plunket, Barnardos, the Children's and Families' Commissioners, UNICEF, EPOCH and others, who were all happy to listen to Dr Durrant, will at last be able to speak face to face with someone who not only lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish, but someone who, as a lawyer there, deals directly with the interface between the law and its application to society. It appears this interface is savagely chewing up many children and families, leaving a trail of permanent damage. But it is all done in the best interests of the child, they say.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson is also a founder and the Chair of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, a Scandinavian-wide organisation of lawyers concerned about this social damage committed in the name of social good. They receive no government funding. Mrs Harrold-Claesson will be like a voice from the future, giving first-hand reports of where legislation similar to that proposed by Green MP Sue Bradford to repeal Section 59 has led Sweden, a trail New Zealand will hopefully not follow.

Such legislation removes real authority - the kind that can be backed up with force when necessary - from parents and transfers it to the state who can use whatever force it likes. Indeed, in Sweden the numbers of social workers and foster families has had to increase dramatically to cope with the force the state required to be used to implement its non-smacking laws. These do what Bradford, Kiro and the anti-smacking lobby assure us will not happen here: parents are arrested and charged for "minor" technical assaults as well as children being removed from their families.

These laws have also become more stringent in Sweden since smacking was banned in 1979. To further enforce the view that children should have as many rights and as much autonomy as adults, parents can now be charged with "disturbing the peace" of children. We've seen it in the schools in New Zealand: having banned the cane, teachers are now advised not to touch students in any way for any reason apart from dire emergencies, lest they be charged with some kind of assault, physical or sexual. Imagine the psychological harm to both parents and children if parents become afraid to even touch their own children. According to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, this is the situation rapidly developing in Sweden.

Mrs Harrold-Claesson has advised Family Integrity that she is eagerly looking forward to meeting with the heads of as many child advocacy groups as possible.


Family Integrity #100 -- Ruby on Radio NZ


Radio New Zealand talked with Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson by phone on Wednesday 14 June 2006. Have a listen:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/anti-smacking_bill

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity #99 -- Positive Press from USA


Monday, 12 June 2006

Is spanking abuse or discipline?
From: Salem (Ohio) News, 11 June 2006
http://www.salemnews.net/news/story/0611202006_new10brownfield.asp

By CATHY BROWNFIELD/Family Recovery Center
Spanking: Abuse or discipline? "I don't know what to do with Charlie anymore," the young mother complained. "We've talked and talked to him, but he still is out of control."
"Maybe you've talked too much. Maybe Charlie needs to understand that there are consequences for his actions, sometimes painful consequences. Maybe you need to give him a spanking," her mentor advised.
The mentor could remember when the public discussion of the inappropriateness of spanking was brought to her consciousness. "You know, my mother spanked my siblings and me. She didn't have to do it very many times for me to understand that I didn't like the spankings and I didn't like the humiliation that went with it. I didn't want to disappoint or embarrass my family.
"The kids in the neighborhood thought we never got disciplined, but my mother didn't let us off. She extended the courtesy to us of disciplining us in private. Oh, we'd get to apologize for our crime to whomever we needed to apologize, and we got what we deserved behind closed doors. I can honestly say that none of my siblings or I ever were in trouble with the law, the justice system. We all are dependable, honest and sincere. I credit a good mother who didn't just hit us for no reason. When we got it she made sure we knew WHY we were getting it and she made sure we understood that she loved us."
The young mother, like so many other parents today, was fearful of corporal punishment. She didn't want to face charges of child abuse. She, like so many other parents today, needed to understand the difference between child abuse and discipline.
John S. Lyons, University of Northwestern Medical School in Chicago, wrote an article, "Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression?"
"Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggressionŠthe 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment, usually in 2- to 6-year-olds," he wrote.
"Although the Swedish anti-spanking law [1979] was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49 percent higher than the United States one year after the anti-spanking law was passed.
"[Data] suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increasedŠrelative to the decreasing rate in the United States."
"Child abuse is a reality, and stories of child abuse are horrifying," advise Drs. Den. A. Trumbull and S. DuBose Ravenel. Both have pediatric practices, Trumbull in Montgomery, Ala. and Ravenel in High Point, N.C. "But while loving and effective discipline is quite definitely NOT harsh and abusive, neither is it weak and ineffectual. Indeed, disciplinary spanking can fall well within the boundaries of loving discipline and need not be labeled abusive violence."
The Family Research Council commissioned a consumer research poll. Of those contacted, "More than four out of five Americans who were actually spanked by their parents as children say it was an effective form of discipline."
"The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental effects of spanking in certain situations," advise Drs. Trumbull and Ravenel.
"Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use.
"Reactive, impulsive hitting after losing control due to anger is unquestionably the wrong way for a parent to use corporal punishmentŠif proper spanking is proactively used in conjunction with other disciplinary measures, better control of the particularly defiant child can be achieved, and moments of exasperation are less likely to occur."
Points to Ponder
o It isn't whether spanking is used. It's HOW spanking is used.
o Maternal permissiveness and criticism has been linked to childhood aggressiveness than physical discipline.
o Removing effective spanking from a parent's disciplinary repertoire, leaves him or her with nagging, begging, belittling, and yelling, once the primary disciplinary measures have failed.
o Parents employing balanced discipline (including spanking) and positive encouragement have the better-behaved children.
o Very compliant children may never need spanking because they respond to milder forms of correction.
Drs. Trumbull and Ravenel suggest that "Spanking should be used selectively for clear, deliberate misbehavior, particularly that which arises from a child's persistent defiance of a parent's instruction.
It should be used only when the child receives at least as much encouragement and praise for good behavior as correction for problem behavior.
All kids misbehave. They all need to receive the negative consequences of their actions. Parents should stay firm, fair and consistent.
Family Recovery Center is dedicated to promoting healthy individuals, families and communities. www.familyrecovery.org The agency is located at 964 N. Market St., Lisbon; phone, 330-424-1468; e-mail, info@familyrecovery.org.



Family Integrity #98a -- Ruby Harrold-Claesson Press Release


Sunday, 11 June 2006

Here is the press release that went out announcing Ruby Harrold-Claesson coming to NZ.

It is sent out via Family First (Bob McCoskrie, formerly of Radio Rhema) since FF has joined with SPCS (Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, David Lane) and FI in a one-issue "Section 59 Coalition". We three make up the executive committee. Also part of the Coalition are Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz) and Muriel Newman's NZ Centre for Political Debate (www.nzcpd.com) and it is envisioned that others will also join.

The Select Committee had offered Mrs Harrold-Claesson a miserly 10 minutes in Auckland on July 27. Then they said they were no longer meeting on July 27. Now they are meeting in Hamilton on 27 July, in Christchurch 20 July and in Wellington 13 July.

More about media appearances and meetings with MPs later.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity

 

Newsletters # 95 - 98

Family Integrity # 98 -- Encouragement

Dear Friends,

I get a daily devotional from the pastor in Peoria, Illinois, who married our son Zach & Megan last year. Today's one I found very encouraging. With a wee bit of obvious tweaking form me, I present it to you. (You may subscribe to Mark Henninger's devotionals by emailing him at: stonewall@bwsys.net. The church he pastors can be viewed at: http://www.pcaredeemer.org/. Check out his sermons on audio (under Resources), especially A Profaned Ministry on 2005-11-06.)


Psalm 94:12 & 13 says,

“Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O LORD, and teach out of Your law, that You may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.”

It is intriguing that our learning from God’s word, in the context of His church, is intended to “give [us] rest” -- and that rest is from “days of adversity.” So, all the effort we put into learning what God’s Word says and applying it to our lives and co-operating with His Holy Spirit to change our thoughts, words and deeds to be more Christlike….all of this labouring away at our sanctification turns out to be largely designed, in the end, to forward our respite from and deliverance from evil.

We must persevere, endure and sweat “until the pit is dug for the wicked.” This has both a temporal (provisional) sense -- from Sunday to Sunday; and an eternal (absolute) sense - that of our rest in heaven. I suspect it may also have an intermediate sense - such as seeing Parliament dump (as into a pit) the Bill to repeal Parental Authority (Section 59).

Sanctification is worth it: don’t give up.



Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 97 -- It's All Go!


We are so grateful for the overwhelming response to our urgent request for funds to enable Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson's visit to NZ next month. Ruby is founder and chair of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, www.nkmr.org, founded to oppose the extensive social damage being done in Scandinavian countries due to their anti-smacking legislation.
The budget for this event has now been covered, and her visit will go ahead, the Lord willing, with her arriving in Auckland on Wednesday 19 July and departing from Auckland on Tuesday 1 August. Your kind donations will enable us to fly her between Auckland and Wellington and anywhere else needed while she is here. The priorities are for her to speak with MPs, leaders of child advocacy groups and other NGOs, and of course the media, in the hopes of getting Parliament to drop Sue Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59, a move that would effectively repeal parental authority over their own children.
Many have kindly extended invitations for Mrs Harrold-Claesson to stay and/or speak to their local group. Thanks so much for these! We are keeping track of them all and will review them once we have nailed down as many of the priority appointments as we can. There will also be opportunities for others to come and speak to your organisation later on.
Having said that, there is still much more that we want to do to keep the momentum going between now and 31 October, when the Select Committee is due to present their findings and recommendations to Parliament for the Bill's second reading. As we seek to keep up the pressure in our fight against the Crimes Amendment Bill, your prayers, financial contributions and moral support will continue to be most welcome.
Family Integrity is not working alone in this. Bob McCoskrie of Family First (www.familyfirst.org.nz) and David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (www.spcs.org.nz) are both giving of their considerable talents and expertise in arranging important meetings for Mrs Harrold-Claesson. I understand the Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz) is also keen to lend its name to this undertaking.
Thanks again so much for your support!
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 96 -- New Poll To Take


http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/content/parents_and_smacking.htm?PHPSESSID=3b64ff08afcc910930a9ed27ca9097dd


Greetings all,

You may want to participate in this quick poll.

FYI, when I did it, being the totally biased person that I am, I answered one question this way:

Q: Should there be a period of sustained parent education before any change?

My Answer: No. Because there shouldn't be any change; therefore no education is needed. And the state is certainly not the one to educate in this area, and probably not in any other either.

http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/content/parents_and_smacking.htm?PHPSESSID=3b64ff08afcc910930a9ed27ca9097dd


Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 95 -- Urgent Request


Dear Friends,

Family Integrity has an extremely urgent issue we are asking you to please consider.

We have booked a flight to bring out from Sweden lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who defends families there who are being prosecuted and who are having their children taken from them under the Swedish no-smacking legislation. Ruby says the destruction of families in Sweden is horrendous. She is very keen to come and testify before the NZ Select Committee and warn them NOT to let this Bill of Bradford’s to ban the use of force by parents to proceed. She has founded and chairs the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, www.nkmr.org (click the Union Jack for English site), composed of lawyers from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark who are also concerned about the level of social damage such legislation is causing in their respective countries.

We need to confirm (pay for) the flight and commit to other expenses by this coming Tuesday 6 June. Therefore PLEASE ACT ON THIS TODAY!

We are working every network we can think of asking for three things: 1) prayer; 2) that this message be forwarded as far and wide as possible; 3) funds.

1) Please pray that the funds will arrive, that she will survive the brutal non-stop flying and airport transfers, that her testimony will mightily impact the Select Committee, and that this Bill of Bradford’s will be discarded.

2) Please send this around to as many as you feel would consider it.

3) Money: The Select Committee have given her a mere 10 minutes on 27 July. As outrageous as this is, we will also have her travel NZ to speak with NGOs, MPs, the media, churches, etc. She is booked to arrive in Auckland 20 July and depart 1 August. We need funds not only for her airfares here, but also travelling and accommodation while here. We reckon NZ$7,000 should cover most of it.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson will clear up some of the myths we’ve been hearing for years about the Swedish “paradise”. Ruby is a native of Jamaica, meaning English is her first language. A brief bio is at: . We need money or pledges for money by this Tuesday 6 June. If we have it, we proceed. If we don’t, we will cancel the bookings and abandon the whole project. Thank you for considering this request.

Please do not hesitate to contact us, to make a pledge or send cheques made out to Family Integrity, or email us for FI’s bank account number to make a direct credit:

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
Ph. (06) 357-4399
Fax (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

PS - Attached is an article from the sodomite lobby which says they see this Section 59 debate as a key issue in their agenda to socially engineer New Zealand their way.

Comment: Section 59: A Social Conservative Retreat?
25FEB06 - Craig Young

Have LGBT community efforts led to a considerablely weakened Christian Right effort
against Sue Bradford's Section 59 Repeal Bill? What does this have to do with us, one might
ask.

Lesbian feminists have had longstanding involvements within the child protection profession.
Added to which, this particular political initiative is the first real test of opposition to the
Christian Right during this political term, and will disclose what condition they might be in
for later reform initiatives, like transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws and adoption
reform legislation. It has strategic significance to us.

With the Bradford Bill, the Christian Right is facing one of its worst nightmares. What do
they do when professional opinion is heavily stacked in favour of repeal legislation? Simply,
the answer is: what Christian Right? Family Integrity, Christian News, Garnet Milne and
SPCS are plugging away there still, but there are severe constraints on the opposition. The
Maxim Institute put together an anemic looking brief guide to the private members bill in
question, without even providing background information, or links to anti-repeal websites.
Conservative Catholics are nowhere to be seen, preferring to prioritise their anti-euthanasia
activities.

Moreover, there are geographical limitations. Family Integrity/Christian News are based in
Palmerston North, while Garnet Milne squats malignantly in Wanganui, as minister of the
Reformed Fellowship of that provincial city, and opposition seems website-based and virtual.
Unlike the Civil Union Act debate, there have been no public meetings, no anti-repeal
petitions, or even widespread distribution of anti-repeal propaganda.

If there is a public presence, it belongs to the children's health and welfare groups that
dominate the debate. They have distributed pro-repeal brochures, and and have attracted
support from the Body Shop, now distributing a pro-repeal petition.

Bluntly, the Christian Right response has been pathetic. Because they lack anyone credible
with experience in pediatrics or developmental psychology, there has been resort to
predictable populist attacks on pro-repeal medical professionals as members of a sinister
'elite' opposed to 'traditional families,' who are attacking the parental 'right' to belt kids.

Again, this is significant to us. Pediatric and child development specialists will also be
relevant to LGBT debates around adoption law reform, when our time finally arrrives. Then
there's the inevitable conspiratorial approach, in which an unrepresentative group of 'activists'
has seized control of pro-repeal child health and welfare groups. No, pro-repeal child health
and welfare groups are basing their case on coalface professional practice, and evidencebased
research derived from that practice.

No matter, National's so-called 'family' spokesperson, Judith Collins, is once again pandering
to the fundamentalist lobby over this issue. "Parenting is not an academic issue," she whines.
Sue Bradford and Ruth Dyson replied that if she wasn't going to listen to professional prorepeal
opinion, then what did she base her opinions on? One can only hope that John Key
abolishes this ridiculous shadow portfolio when he takes over as Leader of the Opposition, if
all Collins will ever do is listen to unrepresentative social conservative lobby groups, and
ignore evidence and practice-based professional research on family policy issues. Including
ours.

I still predict that the Christian Right will lose this one. There's nothing like the opposition
that existed to either the decriminalisation of sex work or LGBT relationship recognition.
And if it works for Section 59 Repeal, then what about Georgina's transgender protection bill,
and eventual inclusive adoption law reform?

Given this bill’s importance as an index of the strength of the Christian Right, I recommend
that there is an influx of LGBT supporters who support Bradford and reform proponents
throughout this process. Write submissions and support her bill.

Recommended:
www.greens.org.nz
If you want to help Sue Bradford's repeal efforts, email her at: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.
nz

Not Recommended:
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
www.christiannews.co.nz
www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
www.section59.com
www.spcs.org.nz

ENDS
GayNZ.com
http://www.gaynz.com/
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1206&print=yes
 

Newsletters # 86 - 94

Newsletter #86 -- S. 59 debate report


Greetings all!

The debate I had with Dr Ian Hassall on Section 59 at the Rationalist House in Auckland on Sunday 23 April went well.

Genevieve and I drove to Hamilton and stayed with friends from the Hamilton Family Bible Assembly who drove us up to the Rationalist House in Symonds St, downtown Auckland on Sunday night. There were about 10 of us altogether, which pretty much equalled their numbers. The Rationalists and Humanists who were there were mostly quite interesting and entertaining characters, fun to talk to and quite stimulating academically and intellectually.

Dr Hassell mainly dwelt on research "findings" plus a few statistics. Well, these are easily blown out of the water, for people on all sides of the argument agree, when pressed, that it is impossible to prove that this event or these events in a child's life CAUSE this set of negative social behaviours later on. He committed the usual propaganda techniques of conflating violence, abuse and smacking into one single undifferentiated category; of paternalistically pronouncing that his opinion, formed from newspaper accounts, of what this or that parent did to a child was abusive assault when juries of 12 of his peers had judged, having seen all the evidence in excruciating detail, the parent to be justified in using that force; claiming same human rights for children as for adults but immediately saying he really doesn't mean ALL (such as right to vote, to smoke or go to jail).

He didn't raise as many issues as I thought he would, so in fact I did not get the chance to rebutt the normally raised arguments that we need to repeal Section 59 to fulfill our UNCROC agreement; that we need to repeal to send a signal to society that family violence will not be tolerated; that no other piece of legislation allows one group of people to be assaulted by another; that any and all families are as prone to family violence as any other. So I had to settle for thrashing the research and statistics argument: I named quite a few more reasearchers and referred to and actually held up the research documents of far more studies than did he. I was able to provide a lot more context to the cases he trotted out again (the horsewhip lady and the wooden rod man) having spoken with the lady herself and knowing the wooden rod was the size of a normal wooden spoon. And the human rights argument always ignores the fact that children are children are depend on parents and that parents are expected and legally required to provide the necessities of life: so the children are not autonomous after all. And if you want to talk physical integrity, I said, let's look at the schools, how they force children to attend, sit in non-ergonomically designed chairs for hours, listen to politically correct, dumbed down lessons, be bullied, exposed to drugs, pornography and headlice and are themselves NEVER asked what they think about it. Try treating adults that way and see what happens. This kind of abuse goes on everyday, but no one argues against it, because it is perpetrated by state officials at schools, whereas parents cannot be allowed free rein to rear their chidlren as they see fit.

The points I actually presented in the first part were more varied than his: that the whole debate was not about violence, since Section 59 does not condone or justify violence in any way, but it was about removing parental authority by denying them the use of "force" however the word may be defined in the future. That smacking, regardless of how light, will be regarded as criminal assault, just as the Police Commissioner has said in writing. That any kind of discipline that uses force, even time out, will also be regarded as criminal assault; that to argue that the Police will use common sense and discretion and not charge wee acts of smacking is to ask the Police NOT to enforce the clear wording of the law. That the inevitable police and social worker harassment of reasonable parents will lead to REAL child abuse, as Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson documents again and again has happened there since smacking was banned in 1979; that repeal is simplistic in that in makes no effort to understand "force" in all its forms, or look into the origins, motivations, aims, objectives, methodologies, philosohies and outcomes of the institution of smacking; that the repeal lobby do not count a person's deeply held beliefs about the closest thing to most of our hearts....how to raise our own children....for anything but just expect them to change a practise held for thousands of years. And I reviewed how repeal will INCREASE child, parent and family abuse.

It was interesting to note that the humanist association had shrunk so much, they had to join in with the rationalist association. And now this joint group is shrinking so much, they are hoping to join forces with the skeptics association.

We had a fun time discussing evolution vs creation science afterwards, and it was interesting to note that they regarded the Intelligent Design movement as creationism in disguise, only that they were trying to promote a god who was a lot smaller than the God of the Creation Science movement. The Rationalist house had a very impressive library downstairs, complete with overstuffed leather chairs and copies of Bibles, creation science books and other books we would recommend...plus some really wild titles claiming Christ was a mythological person. It would be great to spend many hours there. The folks there were friendly and enjoyed engaging us in debate and conversation, and were always pleasant and not aggressive or overly confrontational. They also presented Dr Hassall and I a generous gift. No one was declared winner of the debate.

Several in our group exchanged addresses and emails, so there may be some more fruitful communication yet to come.

Thanks for all your prayers.

Regards,

Craig Smith


Newsletter #87 -- Bill under fire


Family Integrity #87 -- Bill under fire

Wednesday, 24 May 2006 7:05 a.m.

It has been very gratifying to see wide press and radio coverage of
Bradford's admission that her Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes
Act would probably criminalise too many parents. Claiming she does not
want to criminalise a light smack, quite an illogical claim given her
consistant stance that any smack is unacceptable violence, that one
cannot define reasonable force as it only calibrates legally allowed
violence, that whatever is considered an assault against an adult should
be considered an assault against a child. She is now in favour of
somehow amending the Bill to make it clear that a light smack would not
be criminalised.

This seems to have started from two articles in the June issue of
Investigate Magazine where several QC lawyers expressed their opinion
that repeal of Section 59 would make even "time out" an assault, just as
we have been saying all along.

Here is the Family Integrity Press Release on the issue. We need to
watch where this new attitude of Bradford's will lead. Her Bill should
be dumped and the whole issue dropped. There simply is no reason to
modify this Bill. Violence and abuse toward chidlren are already
illegal. Educate, enforce and go for the real souces of violent
influences in this society such as TV, video games, abortion on demand,
rampant school bullying, etc.

Craig Smith


PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Publication

Truth is Catching Up

It appears Sue Bradford has admitted that her Bill to amend the Crimes
Act to ban smacking is flawed and itself needs 'amendment'.

Since August last year when the Office of the Police Commissioner
confirmed that repeal of Section 59 would make any smacking into a
criminal assault, Bradford has claimed this has not been her intent. Yet
her Explanatory Note in the Bill itself clearly confirms that it has
always been her intent. She has also illogically claimed again and again
that the Police will not enforce the law should her Bill pass and
Section 59 be repealed.

The latest issue of Investigate Magazine has comments from several top
New Zealand QCs confirming precisely what Family Integrity has been
saying for months: that if Section 59 is repealed and parents are
prohibited from using any force with their children, be it reasonable or
unreasonable, even the most-often-mentioned alternative to corporal
discipline, "time out", will almost certainly be classed as a criminal
assault as well!

Commonsense would dictate that Ms Bradford's Bill be withdrawn. The
dawning truth of its implications has shown it to be completely
unworkable.

But it gets worse. Ms Bradford is starting to talk about amending the
Bill, presumably to tighen up the definition of what constitutes
"reasonable" force. She has until now consistently rubbished such ideas
as they work against her objectives of criminalising any parental use of
force at all with their own children. Family Integrity also opposes the
idea of defining "reasonable" force, but for a much different reason: it
is simply impossible to do.

Looking only at the Crimes Act, Sections 39, 42, 48, 52, 53, 56 and 60
all allow for "reasonable" force in scenarios such as riots and self
defense and maintaining order and discipline on board a ship or
aircraft. Sections 41, 45, 46 and 55 allow for the use of force, without
the limiting word "reasonable", in cases such as suicide or defense of
your home. The word "reasonable" has no meaning in law, and cannot be
defined in law, without a context, without the judge or jury knowing all
the relevant circumstances. And this is precisely what Section 59 calls
for: if a parent is to be justified in using force with a his or her
child, the force must conform to two limitations: it must be used by way
of correction, and it must be reasonable "in the circumstances". In the
life of any family there are an infinite variety of circumstances that
play out over time. To try to define them all as either "reasonable" or
"unreasonable" would require an entire library full of descriptions. The
very idea is daft. Just like Bradford's original Bill to repeal Section
59 in the first place.

As Family Integrity has been saying all along, Section 59 of the Crimes
Act is a brilliant piece of legislation that should not be tampered
with.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter # 88 -- Composition of Select Committee Changes


Family Integrity # 88 -- Composition of Select Committee Changes

Friday, 26 May 2006 11:42 a.m.

Dear Friends,

Ed Rademaker and I attended the first hearing of submissions on the Bill to repeal Section 59. I hope to have a report of that later today. What a propaganda war this is turning out to be!

In the meantime, take note of the composition of the Justine and Electoral Committee which is hearing this Bill:

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: Craig Smith [mailto:Craig@hef.org.nz]
Sent: Friday, 26 May 2006 10:48
To: Lynne Pillay
Cc: SC-JE
Subject: membership of select committee

Greetings!

Here is the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee from the
Parliament website:.

http://otherpublications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.n
z/browse/show.aspx?type=7
nz/browse/show.aspx?type=7&typemode=1&displaymode=7>
&typemode=1&displaymode=7

Justice and Electoral
Russell Fairbrother, Christopher Finlayson (Deputy Chairperson),
Ann Hartley, Lynne Pillay (Chairperson), Nandor Tanczos, Nicky Wagner,
and Dr Richard Worth.

At the hearing in Parliament yesterday, however, others such as Sue
Bradford and Anne Tolley were apparently sitting on the committee.

Has the Membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee changed?

Regards,

Craig Smith





-----Original Message-----
From: Cath Anyan [mailto:Cath.Anyan@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:55 AM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: RE: membership of select committee


Dear Mr Smith

The permanent membership of the committee has not changed. The committee
has formed a subcommittee of five members for the Crimes (Abolition of
Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. The
subcommittee comprises Lynne Pillay, Ann Hartley, Nandor Tanzcos, Nicky
Wagner and Chris Finlayson. However, yesterday Sue Bradford replaced
Nandor Tanzcos and Chris Finlayson was replaced by Jackie Blue for part
of the meeting and Anne Tolley for part of the meeting.

Generally, Sue Bradford will be replacing Nandor Tanczos for this bill
and Chester Borrows will be replacing Chris Finlayson.

Regards
Cath Anyan

Cath Anyan
Clerk of the Committee
Justice and Electoral Committee
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Email: cath.anyan@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: +64 4 471 9245
Fax: +64 4 473 0127
www.parliament.govt.nz


Family Integrity # 89 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part A

Monday, 29 May 2006 10:36 p.m.

On Thursday 25 May 2006 Ed Rademaker and I attended the first sitting of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to consider submissions on MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59, which would effectively ban smacking (and criminalise a lot of other every-day parenting activities as well).

It was a showcase of the “heavies” lined up in favour of repeal: Save the Children, EPOCH, Familes Commission, UNICEF, Parent.org, Barnardos, Relationship Services, CCS, IHC and the Commissioner for Children. Each of these was totally in favour of repeal, and each was also absolutely opposed to any amendment or attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force”.

In fact, they were nearly one in their arguments with the exception of the Families Commission: Dr Prasad, having discussed widely across religious and cultural and ethnic lines, was keen to see repeal followed by a long introductory time of perhaps 18 months before enforcement began, in order to educate people about the changes and their implications. For this he was forcefully castigated by Labour member of the Committee, Ann Hartley, who said they were tired of waiting for change. She and chair Lynne Pillay made no pretence of how much they favoured the Bill.

The membership of the Select committee is also somewhat fluid as well as biased. Apparently a sub-committee has been formed specifically for this Bill and is made up of Labour member and chair Lynne Pillay, Labour member Ann Hartley, Green member Nandor Tanzcos (who was replaced on Thursday by the Bill’s sponsor Sue Bradford), National member Nicky Wagner, and National member Chris Finlayson who was replaced on Thursday by National member Jackie Blue for part of the time and by National member Anne Tolley for the balance of the hearing.

This report is in two parts (and will be posted out in instalments): the first mentions the common themes running throughout the ten presentations and makes extensive comments on each. The second part deals with distinctives of each presenter.


Part One:

All the groups were united in the arguments they use. They are:

1. Smacking is spanking is hitting is beating is violence is abuse.
2. This is not an anti-smacking Bill, it was an anti-violence Bill.
3. The repeal of Section 59 will not criminalise parents, and that is not our intention. We are sure the police will not prosecute light smacks.
4. Any attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force” only validates the use of violence.
5. The existence of Section 59 says violence is acceptable.
6. The Select Committee had before it a golden opportunity to exercise real moral courage and leadership by repealing Section 59.
7. Parents cannot be expected to know what is best, as they are operating in the absence of any formal training while we experts have the benefit of modern day theory and practice.
8. Research only shows negative results of physical punishment.

All of these are inconsistent and illogical.

First, conflating the terms smacking, hitting, beating, violence and abuse as though they all mean the same is an old muddle-the-language propaganda ploy. We have the different words because they mean different things. The batsman never spanks the ball, he hits it.

Second, the Parliamentary Committee Chair, Lynne Pillay herself, commented testily how frustrated she was that people referred to this Bill as the anti-smacking Bill. Dr Prasad, the Families Commissioner, said it is an anti-violence Bill. UNICEF’s Beth Wood said Section 59 means you can be excused if you beat your child. Jeff Sanders of Relationship Services said that Section 59 affirmed violence against children is acceptable. That means they assume that Section 59’s wording (“Every parent…is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”) allows for beatings and other shows of violence against children. What do you think? Does this wording allow for violence and abuse against children? The actual use of Section 59 in real court cases shows that it most definitely does not. (More on this later.)

So how do they come to such a ridiculous conclusion that “reasonable force” does equate with violence? Because they are religiously committed to the ideology of the United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child, the group that monitors how well each country is conforming to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). This Committee, according to Frances Joychild of the NZ Law Commission, has said that a smack, no matter how light, constitutes violence and abuse by definition. Now this UN Committee is made up of people from, among other places, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Thailand, Egypt and Burkina Faso: not exactly showcases of children’s rights when they practise things such as intense suppression of religious minorities, beheading and stoning and cutting off of hands for various crimes, no political parties, no voting, child torture, child floggings, child death sentences, child slavery, child prostitution. Why should New Zealand listen to such no-hopers?

Actually, Beth Wood of UNICEF was honest enough to say that she was thoroughly anti-smacking. And Maree Russell from EPOCH said it was morally wrong to smack children. The IHC folks said “smacking” was often a euphemism for a real beating. Even though Committee Chair Lynne Pillay was keen to establish that this was not an anti-smacking Bill, all the presenters spoke out clearly against smacking in any form.
And since repeal would mean parents who smack (or use any kind of force by way of correction as opposed to restraining for safety’s sake or forcefully getting a child out of harm’s way) are definitely exposed to a possible charge of criminal assault due to the wide definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act, to say it is not an anti-smacking Bill is quite dishonest. To say it is an anti-violence Bill, when there isn’t any more than an unsubstantiated and illogical claim that Section 59’s existence allows for the continuation of violence in this country, is simply irrational.



Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 90 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part B


Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Part One:

All the groups were united in the arguments they use. They are:

1. Smacking is spanking is hitting is beating is violence is abuse.
2. This is not an anti-smacking Bill, it was an anti-violence Bill.
3. The repeal of Section 59 will not criminalise parents, and that is not our intention. We are sure the police will not prosecute light smacks.
4. Any attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force” only validates the use of violence.
5. The existence of Section 59 says violence is acceptable.
6. The Select Committee had before it a golden opportunity to exercise real moral courage and leadership by repealing Section 59.
7. Parents cannot be expected to know what is best, as they are operating in the absence of any formal training while we experts have the benefit of modern day theory and practice.
8. Research only shows negative results of physical punishment.

(Dealing now with points 3 & 4):

Third, since the obvious can no longer be ignored - that repealing Section 59 will criminalise even the pacifist’s favourite method of discipline of time out - Bradford and all these presenters have had to start crowing about how they don’t intend to criminalise parents. What they intend is irrelevant, and they know it: what counts is what wording is finally enacted. They have also been making assuring noises about how the Police won’t prosecute minor acts of technical assault, but will use discretion. Well, for crying out loud, that’s just what Police do now: use discretion, as to whether the force used by parents is reasonable or not. But if Section 59 is repealed, it doesn’t matter about force used: any act of force by a parent toward a child will be an assault, end of story, just as any act of force by one adult toward another is assault. This is precisely the intention Bradford had in mind when she wrote the Bill, for she says so in the Bill’s Explanatory Note: “The effect of this amendment is that the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians will be removed. They will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.”

And I would like to know how Bradford and any of these presenters can assure us what the Police will or will not do in the future? Dr Andrew Jack, PhD, the legal expert of the Police Commissioner’s Office wrote Family Integrity a letter on 11 August 2005 saying quite clearly, “If Section 59 was repealed in its entirety, parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction….smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault.” So what discretion can Police use when all smacks are assaults and there is no longer any legal justification for reasonable smacks or light smacks (such as what Section 59 currently provides for parents)?

The first point of agreement among the anti-smacking brigade referred to above is that smacking is hitting is beating is abuse. Up until now they have all been very consistent and united on this point. But now they are saying they don’t intend for the Police to worry about “light smacks”. Watch what happens next.

Fourth, every single one of these presenters was adamant that the Committee must not make any attempt to define “reasonable force”, as it only calibrates degrees of violence against children. Now think about this for a moment: they are not talking about calibrating or defining “unreasonable force”: that is already ruled out of bounds. They are opposed to calibrating “reasonable force” for that is the same as calibrating violence. “Reasonable force” is the same as violence is what they are saying. And they don’t want to calibrate it. But in the next breath they calibrate violence into a category known as “light smacks” which is so acceptable they do not intend for the police to prosecute it. And yet the IHC folks said force against children was very seldom reasonable. The Save the Children presenter said no force was ever reasonable.

This is known as speaking with a forked tongue. The anti-smacking lobby is now trying to be on both sides of the argument at the same time. This is hypocrisy of the first order. “Light smacks” apparently qualify as “reasonable force” for the anti-smacking lobby does not want to criminalise it or see the police prosecute it. But they do not want to define “reasonable force”, for that is calibrating violence. They are keen to justify “light smacks” as “reasonable force” which should not be criminalized or prosecuted when the whole objective of this Bill is to get rid of any legal justification for using “reasonable force”!

The picture that is emerging appears to show that Bradford, Kiro and co. do not want PARENTS to have the LEGAL justification, the LEGAL authority, to freely use reasonable force with their children. They appear to favour a system of selective application of the law wherein specific people, families and people groups can be targeted. We were told at the hearing that Police will use discretion based on guidelines they develop from time to time. Cindy Kiro in fact volunteered to help Police develop these guidelines which, one would presume, will further calibrate force beyond the vague term "light smacks"....even though she strongly disagrees with such calibration as it only validates the use of violence.

These so called child advocates do more flipping and flopping than a fish out of water.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 91 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part C


Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Part One:

All the groups were united in the arguments they use. They are:

1. Smacking is spanking is hitting is beating is violence is abuse.
2. This is not an anti-smacking Bill, it was an anti-violence Bill.
3. The repeal of Section 59 will not criminalise parents, and that is not our intention. We are sure the police will not prosecute light smacks.
4. Any attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force” only validates the use of violence.
5. The existence of Section 59 says violence is acceptable.
6. The Select Committee had before it a golden opportunity to exercise real moral courage and leadership by repealing Section 59.
7. Parents cannot be expected to know what is best, as they are operating in the absence of any formal training while we experts have the benefit of modern day theory and practice.
8. Research only shows negative results of physical punishment.

(Dealing now with points 5 & 6):

Fifth, Section 59, they say, is to blame for most of this country’s woes in the area of child abuse. Its existence has created a culture of violence toward children. If only this legal justification for parents to use “reasonable force” were repealed, it would send a clear message to society that child violence will not be tolerated. Again, they equate “reasonable force” with violence.

As evidence of the claim that the mere existence of Section 59 breeds violence in this country, reference has been constantly made to the cases where courts allegedly justified parents who, it was said by the pro-repeal lobby, committed acts of violence and abuse upon their children. The one case specifically mentioned during this Committee hearing was the lady in Timaru, the one Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro has on many occasions in the past referred to as the “horse whip lady”. At this hearing, Kiro expressed her disappointment that the jury in Timaru acquitted her, justified the force she used on her child, which, in Kiro’s view, was clearly abusive.

Now just consider what’s going on here. Dr Kiro, not having been at the Timaru court, and already having shown her tendency to irresponsible exaggeration (the “horse whip” turned out to be an 18 inch riding crop, and the “bamboo cane” she has mentioned in the past turned out to be a bamboo garden stake, smaller around than your pinkey), insists that her opinion is superior to and should be regarded by her hearers as more accurate than the unanimous decision of 12 of her peers who had all the details of the case laid out before them in excruciating detail. As a matter of record, the Timaru lady’s son voluntarily submitted to the discipline; the school was so impressed with his immensely improved behaviour that they commended his mum for it; the lady made no statements in her own defense, neither did she or her lawyer call any witnesses. They let the prosecution have free rein to do all they could to prove her guilty, and in so doing they convinced the jury she was justified and innocent. And the prosecution did not appeal the jury’s decision. Yet Kiro’s paternalism and arrogance toward this parent and toward the jury system is still so great, that she still cannot stop herself from publicly denigrating them both.

The other case the anti-smacking lobby continually refers to is the “wooden plank” incident in Hawkes Bay. First of all, we must note that they rarely ever refer to any but these two. That’s because cases of suspected child abuse where Section 59 is brought up are very rare, about 1.4 a year, according to YouthLaw soliciter John Hancock of Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, part of the anti-smacking lobby. And in the majority of these cases, the defendant is found guilty. That means that Section 59 is working very well: parents who are tried using a Section 59 defence and who are justified are less than one a year and closer to one every two years.

Well, it turns out the "wooden plank" has also been referred to as a “2 by 4”. It was in fact a 30cm x 2cm stick, the same size as a wooden spoon. The boy had lied to his dad about stealing $40 from a visitor to the house, submitted willingly to the smacking and testified in Court that the injuries to his back had been sustained by serious abrasions caused by an accident that occurred several days earlier while roller-skating.

In addition, the anti-smacking group somehow manage to bring up the names of children visciously and brutally murdered - Lillibing, James Whakaruru, Delcelia Witika, Tangaroa Matiu, Coral Burrows, Saliel Aplin, Olympia Jetson and Mereana Edmonds, whose killers are behind bars - and talk as though there is some kind of link between these monsters’ actions and the “reasonable force” wording of Section 59. But there is no link at all. Section 59 was never brought up in any of these cases. And yet the Barnardos group said at this hearing, “How many more James Whakarurus and Lillybings do we need to sacrifice for the sake of Section 59?” What on earth are they talking about? Please, where is the logic in that?

Sixth, the Select Committee was encouraged to ignore the nay-sayers they would hear from in subsequent submissions (Dr Kiro was especially articulate in emphasising this) and to seize this opportunity to show real moral courage and leadership. That is, ignore overwhelming public opinion in favour of retaining Section 59 and repeal it anyway.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 92 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part D


Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Part One:

All the groups were united in the arguments they use. They are:

1. Smacking is spanking is hitting is beating is violence is abuse.
2. This is not an anti-smacking Bill, it was an anti-violence Bill.
3. The repeal of Section 59 will not criminalise parents, and that is not our intention. We are sure the police will not prosecute light smacks.
4. Any attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force” only validates the use of violence.
5. The existence of Section 59 says violence is acceptable.
6. The Select Committee had before it a golden opportunity to exercise real moral courage and leadership by repealing Section 59.
7. Parents cannot be expected to know what is best, as they are operating in the absence of any formal training while we experts have the benefit of modern day theory and practice.
8. Research only shows negative results of physical punishment.

(Dealing now with points 7 & 8):


Seventh, several presenters affirmed that parents do not have the benefit of “modern child rearing theory and practice”. The implication is that the 80% of New Zealanders who disagree with outlawing reasonable force are in the dark really, and fairly ignorant. And so these lobby groups want to use the force of law to bring us ignorant parents into line with their own peculiar biases and prejudices.

And these folks are biased; they have agendas, make no mistake about that. John Bowis of Save the Children said, “No force is reasonable.” This is hardly a majority opinion. Maree Russell of EPOCH said smacking is morally wrong, that children have a right to the physical integrity of their bodies, as do adults. Of course, she didn’t bother to qualify that statement to allow for parents wiping children’s bottoms or to allow for state agents in the form of teachers, police and truancy officers to require children to attend schooling institutions several hours a day, five days a week for nine months a year for ten years and to sit where they are told in non-ergonomically designed chairs and to wear uniforms, whether they like it or not, just as adult prisoners have severe limitations on the physical integrity of their bodies as to where they can go and what they can do. Dr Prasad of the Families Commission said Parliament cannot wait for majority opinion to favour non-smacking disciplinary measures, but must take the lead and “give the strongest signal possible about violence”, presumably by repealing Section 59. If they repeal it but then don’t prosecute, as they all affirmed was the intention, how will that send any message at all about violence?

The CCS crowd was really confusing: they straight-up admitted that even though their client parents insisted that they needed a larger parenting tool-kit, one that included various types of force, to deal with their disabled children, CCS as an organisation disagreed with these very parents they claimed to be serving and wanted full repeal with no definition of “reasonable force.”

The clincher was the comment made by UNICEF CEO Dennis McKinley: “All the opposition to repeal of Section 59 is coming from parents, and since they are the ones likely to be prosecuted, it is understandable.” Perhaps Dennis was being more honest than most: his words were that parents are the ones "likely" to be prosecuted. It was clear that none of these groups perceived parents as the resident experts on child training and discipline, as the ones most highly motivated and possessing the greatest degree of commitment toward their own children’s best interests, as the ones who know their own children most intimately by virtue of spending the most time with the children. These child advocacy groups made it clear that they know what's best for other people's children. The picture they painted is an adversarial one of parents against children with their various child advocacy groups as the good guys coming to rescue the children from their brutish, uninformed and selfish parents.

Eighth, most of them made reference to research showing only negative effects of violence toward children. All researchers, and nearly every parent, would agree on this. What was left unmentioned is the research on the effects of mild corporal discipline, “light smacks”, research that took care to exclude clear and obvious cases of criminal abuse against children in its statistics. Such studies by people such as Dr Diana Baumrind of University of California at Berkeley, Dr Robert Larzelere of the Univerisity of Nebraska and Dr Rex Ahdar of the University of Otago have shown positive effects of corporal correction. They uncovered the personal and methodological biases employed by researchers such as Dr Murray Strauss of the University of New Hampshire, Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba and Dr Anne Smith of the University of Otago. (Dr Larzelere states that he and Dr Durrant used the same set of Swedish data to arrive at opposite conclusions.) They highlighted the impossibility of isolating episodes of corporal correction from all other life experiences in a person in order to show a causal link between such episodes and negative social behaviours. (All researchers will admit this when pressed, but the pro-repeal researchers often fail to bring this up in their discussion documents and also use wording such as, “research has shown conclusively…”, “we know from research that…”, etc.) And Dr Ahdar has demonstrated how illogical and arrogant is the paternalism consistently employed by the anti-smacking lobby’s arguments.

On top of the commentary contained in the clinical and academic research, there is the social and legal commentary of a unique group known as the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR). This is a collection of lawyers from the various Scandinavian countries who have seen the destruction of families caused by both prosecution of parents who practise corporal discipline (now defined in these countries as assault) and by social welfare agents removing the children from the homes where parents are accused of practising corporal discipline (accused of assault). This NCHR is dedicated to rectifying this anti-smacking legislation because it is so damaging to their societies. See www.nkmr.org .

Family Integrity hopes the Justice and Electoral Select Committee will pay attention to such people who have been down this proposed road and are now sadly occupied with picking up the many pieces.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity # 93 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part E


Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Here is a description of the 10 child advocacy groups' individual submissions plus summary in emails Part E and Part F

Part Two:

First up was John Bowis of Save the Children who put a lot of emphasis on finding out what children say about corporal correction and on what the research he chose to read says about overseas experience. He set the pace for using emotive language in any reference to children and discipline (usually called hitting or beating or most often, violence toward children).

Second was Maree Russell of EPOCH, End Physical Punishment of Children. She just came right out and said that Section 59 is there to cover up assaults by parents upon their own children. This reveals an outrageous attitude toward the law and toward parents. She said “smacking” could not logically be called “light” or “loving”, terms parents use, because some children when interviewed called it “hitting”.

Third was the Families Commission, represented by Dr Prasad, Paul Curry, Mason Durie and a Ms. Campbell who said we’d met at a home educators’ conference in Christchurch years ago. Dr Prasad strongly urged the Committee to show leadership (read: ignore majority opinion) by not waiting for public opinion, but by forming public opinion in the repeal of Section 59. Section 59 did equate with family violence, he said, and that repeal was only one step in a longer term strategy to eliminate violence from society. He called it an anti-violence, not an anti-smacking Bill, and that the strongest possible message needed to be sent to society about violence. Because he acknowledged the institution of smacking came from deeply held religious positions, he wanted to see a lead-in time of perhaps 18 months between formal repeal and repeal taking effect so as to educate the public.

Dennis McKinley and Beth Wood from UNICEF were next. They liked the UN Committee’s “robust” (read: extremist) stand against corporal punishment, that even the lightest smack is abuse that must be outlawed. Beth especially dislikes that Section 59 “justifies” parents using force with their own children, called it an archaic law, that courts apply it inconsistently and that it was out of step with other legislation. The charge of inconsistent application is a red herring: it is due to the force needing to be reasonable in the circumstances. So a bare hand on the bottom can get a guilty sentence while a riding crop on the bottom can get acquittal. The hand was an explosive act on a wee two-year-old for soiling nappies, while the crop was a considered application on a large 12-year-old who submitted to the discipline after committing malicious property damage and serious physical assault with a weapon.

Fifth was a guy from Parent.org who tried to characterise all parental corporal discipline as the undisciplined, out-of-control lashing out in frustration and end-of-tether scenario of his own personal experience. This type of caricature was quite common and reveals an inability or unwillingness to conceive of corporal correction as a conscientious, purposeful, measured, judicial, physical anti-dote to deep-seated spiritual manifestations of rebellion. Parents who understand the institution of smacking will testify that it positively sanctifies, purges and sweetens their children’s characters, rather than scares them into compliance. This guy seemed to think it was up to the Government to set the standards, guidelines and environment for parents’ training of their children.

Barnardos was sixth and basically said that if all parents would simply adopt their rationale, that using force with children is unnecessary, that they would discover it is unnecessary, just as teachers have found that caning is unnecessary. They failed to explain that for parents to discover this would also require them to adopt the rationale that children’s rights have priority over the responsibilities and duties of parents, that children are to be considered nearly as autonomous and independent as the parents, and that the parents must not expect their children to submit to or adopt the parents’ standards and values.

Seventh was Jeff Sanders of Relationship Services (the old Marriage Guidance). He reviewed a lot of negatives that go with violent homes. No argument here, but it was all irrelevant as it assumed the caricature that corporal correction or discipline or force is violent by definition, which it is not. He said that using force in this way does not model self-control. Again, this assumes that smacks are simply expressions of anger and frustration. These groups do not seem able to comprehend that force used by way of correction is of necessity a picture of self control.

Sanders, like several others, saw smacking on the same continuum as the most violent form of abuse: that they were the same in kind, only differing in degree. By now the cumulative effect of all the presenters was that New Zealand’s parents see it as their right and are happily in the habit of beating their kids into submission at the slightest provocation. This idea of “force used by way of correction” being on a continuum that slides easily into abuse and violence is completely false. For discipline to be discipline it first of all must be disciplined in administration. That is, its origins as an idea, its pedagogy, its motivation, aims, objectives, methodology and outcomes are all totally and utterly different from the beatings and hits that come from undisciplined frustration and anger, a caricature of the only kind of force that the repeal lobby seem to ever think about or recognise.

CCS was eighth and raised the interesting points that with disabled children, physical restraint and physical support were both intensively used, not only by parents but also by a larger number of non-family members who are generally involved with caring for the disabled. While repeal of Section 59’s justification for the use of force was clearly going to be especially problematic, CCS was all for it.

In ninth spot was IHC, who mostly just said they agree with CCS, although they emphasised more than others how very much violence was woven throughout New Zealand society.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Family Integrity # 94 -- Opening Oral Submissions, Part F


Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Here is a description of the 10 child advocacy groups' individual submissions plus summary in emails Part E and Part F.

(Final Instalment on Report)

Finally came Dr Cindy Kiro, the Children’s Commissioner. She saw repeal as a “fundamental and necessary step to ensure a safe and secure environment.” She made a comparison between repeal and the law to make seat belts compulsory, which was quite confusing since, while both are dealing with compulsion, repeal is compelling people to stop doing something, while the seat belt law compels people to actively do something. She was trying to say that with seat belts one gave up rights to a certain amount of freedom of movement that has led to a reduction in accidental deaths. Repeal should be embraced by parents as giving up the right to use violence on kids that will lead to less violence. Clearly, this is begging the question. It is the same as saying that if we ate less, we wouldn’t be so fat; if we drank more, we wouldn’t be so thirsty: it is so obvious, it is silly. But again, you have to equate the “reasonable force” of Section 59 with violence for the statement to make any sense in this debate, but as soon as you make that equation, it doesn’t make any sense.

Her presentation really was a pulling together of what everyone else had said, repeating all the arguments already heard, as if reading from the same script. She said repeal will not create a specific offense of smacking or corporal correction….it won’t need to, as the definition of assault in Section 2 will automatically make such actions crimes under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, precisely as Bradford was careful to point out in her Bill’s Explanatory Note.

One of the Committee members pointed out that the letter from the Police Commissioner of 11 August 2005 made it clear that any smacking would be an assault. Kiro then said she contacted the Police Commissioner who said he hadn’t “signed the letter off” and that he wasn’t happy about it. This prompted Committee member Ann Hartley to exclaim, “Oh, I didn’t know that letter was unauthorised.”

Notice, however, that Kiro did not say the letter was unauthorised or that the Police Commissioner disagreed with the letter’s contents. In fact, when the letter was written, the Police Commissioner was Rob Robinson. Mr Robinson retired in December 2005 and Steve Long stepped in as Acting Commissioner until 4 April 2006 when Howard Broad was appointed as the new Police Commissioner. So who exactly did Dr Kiro speak to?

In regard to the issue of the Police not prosecuting light smacking if repeal should happen, Kiro said, “I’m sure Police will be required to exercise discretion.” This was not nearly as positive as the other presenters. She did mention how Police discretion is a function of guidelines the police force develops, and said she’d be happy to help police develop their guidelines in relation to the repeal of Section 59.

Even though Committee Chair Lynne Pillay was keen to establish that this was not an anti-smacking Bill, all the presenters spoke out clearly against smacking in any form. Nearly everyone also mentioned the issue of parents being criminalized by repeal. Some said it was not their intention to criminalise; others that the claim was nonsense and mischievous, confusing criminalisation with prosecution; and others said that the police would not prosecute “light smacks” and other minor cases of technical assault.

Let’s examine these options:

Not the intention: this is irrelevant. What matters is what the wording of the law says, and a simple repeal will cause Section 2’s incredibly broad definition of assault to kick in and make virtually all acts of hands-on parenting without the child’s consent into criminal assault.

Mischievously confusing criminalisation with prosecution: it seems more likely that the presenters who said this are confused and saying that the actions of parents will not be criminalized until they are prosecuted. That is like saying you are not breaking the speed limit by doing 150 km/h until you get a ticket.

Police won’t prosecute: this appears to admit that force used by way of correction will be criminalized, but the Police will turn a blind eye or consider a certain undefined level of force used by parents not to be in the public interest to prosecute. (This is not to be confused with the use of force to restrain a child from doing damage to himself or others or with the use of force to remove the child from imminent danger.) So any use of force to correct or train or discipline one’s child becomes technically an act of assault, but probably not worth prosecuting. These 10 child advocacy groups are saying that they believe there is an undefined area of force referred to throughout the hearing as “light smacks” that will probably not be prosecuted, while there are other equally undefined areas of force, presumably of a greater magnitude than “light smacks”, that will be prosecuted. The Police will be left alone, apparently, to use whatever discretion they decide to use in deciding whether to prosecute or not. This creates a legal environment where virtually every parent is guilty at all times, leaving the Police free to selectively apply the law when and where they like, targeting specific people or people groups.

How can New Zealanders interpret these conflicting ideas? There are several options:

1. Police can selectively apply the law, or threaten to do so, to intimidate and control large sectors of society, as totalitarian regimes have done in the past.
2. Police will haphazardly apply the law too strictly or too loosely here and there doing great damage to their own credibility and to society’s respect for the law.
3. The pro-repeal lobby and child-advocacy groups hope to win over their opposition with promises that there will be no prosecutions of parents who use the undefined category of force known as “light smacks”. Once repeal is achieved, these groups will mount steady pressure to apply the law more and more strictly and consistently in order to force all parents effectively to adopt their ideological child rearing position that one must not use any force to correct or train or discipline children.
4. CYFS has been operating outside the law for some time already, telling staff and parents that it is illegal to smack children, an assertion which is not true. Repeal will just bring the law into line with CYFS’s current illegal practices.

Honestly, if there is a category of force that these child advocacy groups are happy to see go unprosecuted, a category they called “light smacks” all the way through the hearing, they must consider such force reasonable. So why not leave Section 59 just as it is, since it justifies this very thing, “reasonable force used by way of correction.” If they want to send a message about violence in society, how about going for the culture of death surrounding abortion and drug use? How about going for the gratuitous, gory and often sexualised violence on TV, DVDs and video games, the negative influence of which has been demonstrated again and again? How about doing something about the out-of-control bullying on school playgrounds all across New Zealand? This stuff is all in-your-face, whereas negative issues around Section 59 really are hard to see….even after these 10 advocacy groups have spun their most creative tales.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity

 

Newsletters # 16 - 85

Family Integrity Newsletter #16 - Smacking Seminar

Dear Friends of Family Integrity,

You may have heard about the recent project by Otago University’s Children’s
Issues Centre in which the researcher, Professor Anne Smith, claims hitting
children lowers the IQ and breeds violent, anti-social behaviour. Few of us
would argue with such findings, except that they are referring to “spanking”
when they use the word “hitting”. And of course spanking and hitting are not the
same things at all. It has freshened up the debate somewhat anew.

This same Centre is holding a National Seminar (titled “Stop it, it hurts me”)
in Wellington, only two hours’ drive from where I live in Palmerston North, on
Friday and Saturday, 18-19 June, just a couple weeks away. This Professor Smith
and another speaker from Canada are the keynotes, and they will be putting forth
their propaganda as to why they think the state should ban parents from spanking
their own children. Professor Smith will release her full report at this
Seminar. There are also about four opportunities for addressing an open forum or
workshop situation plus plenty of time to talk to the other delegates and get
material explaining a more balanced view of spanking into their hands. Seminar
information and brochure is at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/CIC/pages/news_S&C.html
or by phoning (03) 479-5038
email: cic@otago.ac.nz.

It is these opportunities that need to have someone there who can present the
proper concept of spanking/smacking as the proven tool it is with its Biblical
roots, a tool skilfully used for millennia by loving/caring/concerned parents
who are able to use it in a wise, disciplined and consistent manner. To ban it,
as this Seminar’s speakers are promoting, is to regard all of us parents as
incompetents at best. We need to speak up and not let the best parents in this
country, and most Christian parents as well, be open to criminal prosecutions
and possible removal of their children by CYFS (where they are truly in danger
of abuse of all kinds) should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, as this
Seminar is promoting.

My daughter Genevieve, aged 24, and I are hoping and planning to go to this
Seminar. Genevieve is a very articulate and fearless activist in conservative
and Biblical issues such as this one. (She takes after her dad, they tell me!!)
We’ve been collecting and studying material around this corporal discipline
issue for a few years now and are keen to use our powers of persuasion at what
looks to be a fairly non-receptive audience: the delegates at this Seminar.

But we need finance. We simply cannot afford to pay the fees, although we both
can make the time to attend. The fees are $250 for me, $125 for Genevieve as an
unwaged person (which she is…she works for the Home Education Foundation for
free), $133.88 for the both of us to stay at the Seminar venue (to carry on
late-night debates), $40 for petrol and we’ll cover our own meal costs. That
adds up to $548.88.

There are 168 people on this list. If each one felt like making a donation
toward this opportunity for us to represent the traditional stance on parental
spanking of their own children and to report back to you all our impressions and
experiences of the Seminar, it would be only a donation of $3.27 (three dollars
27c) each.

Would you please consider sending a donation to Genevieve and I so we could
attend this Seminar? Please pray about it and consider it over the weekend. We’d
need to receive an indication if it will be possible for us to go by the middle
of next week, around Wednesday 9 June.

Any money received over and above the cost will be put aside for a future
fighting fund, which we will surely need as this issue hots up…..this Government
says it will be looking closely at repealing Section 59 in December 2005….so
your donations will most definitely be used in the fight and most greatly
appreciated.

Thanks so much for considering this request. Please decide on some action by
Monday or Tuesday 7-8 June, which is only a couple of days away.

Yours in the service of NZ parents,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity


Newsletter #22 -- We're Back!


Greetings all!

Genevieve and I have been into the linos' den. It is not pleasant to be the only
two out of 150 over two days who opposed the rhetoric and spin doctoring of the
academics, social workers and social engineers who are totally committed to the
repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and who are also apparently totally
opposed to responsible parental spanking for correction (that is, not for
punishment) in any way, shape or form. We managed to hand out 78 or so sets of
our 6 brochures. We are working on putting together a full report of our time at
the Seminar "Stop it, it hurts me: research and perspectives on the physical
punishment of children" over both Friday and Saturday just past. These people
are visionary; they are totally committed; they are well networked; well funded;
articulate; they do their homework and stay on top of the issues; they are
masters of spin doctoring and ignoring issues they do not want to discuss.

In short, the UN documents they always say NZ needs to conform to, by repealing
S59, also insist that UNBORN children need legal protection. They ignore that
and the fact that NZ killed 18,500 unborn children last year, 50 a day. We need
to press Dr Cindy Kiro, the Commissioner for Children, and shame her into doing
something about it.

Anyway, more later. If more of us had been there we could have given them even
more cause for pausing and considering. We certainly prevented their weekend
from being a pure rev-each-other-up talk-fest.

Regards,

Craig & Barbara Smith



Family Integrity Newsletter #23 - Pt 1 Seminar Report


“Stop it, it hurts me; research and perspectives on the physical punishment of children.”

Greetings all! There is so much to say after attending that anti-spanking seminar in Wellington. We'll do it in parts. here is the first installation.

My daughter Genevieve (24) and I attended the Children’s Issues Centre Seminar in Wellington, 18-19 June just past. The seminar was titled, “Stop it, it hurts me; research and perspectives on the physical punishment of children.” This is the first instalment of reporting our experiences to you.

This two day seminar was put on by the Children’s Issues Centre of the University of Otago in Dunedin. It was heavily financed by the UN organisation UNICEF. Keynote speakers included:

Professor Anne Smith who just released a review of over 300 pieces of the academic literature relating to this issue. Her review is titled “What Do Children Learn from Being Smacked? Messages from Social Science Theory and Research”;

Dr Cindy Kiro, NZ Commissioner for Children with a talk titled “Child Rights and Physical Punishment in Aotearoa New Zealand;

Associate Professor Joan Durrant from the University of Manitoba, Canada, with a talk titled “Whose Body Is It Anyway: Physical Punishment, Children’s Rights and Parental Responsibility”; and

Mr Tino Pereira, former broadcaster and journalist, speaking on “A Pacific Perspective on Physical Punishment” with the caveat printed in the programme:
“This talk will cover Tino Pereira’s personal view which may not represent mainstream Pacific thinking and practice.”

The entire seminar was focussed on the objective of marshalling arguments for the repealing of s59 of the NZ Crimes Act which reads:

“(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.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.”

The reason people give for wanting this section repealed is two-fold: 1) that it offers a legal defence for those who would subject children to abusive and violent physical punishment and 2) that we are obligated to repeal it in order to fall in line with Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which reads, “States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.” Note also how the titles of the talks use the term “physical punishment”.

But note that Section 59 does not provide a defence for violence, injury, abuse or physical punishment, but only for using reasonable force by way of correction. The wording here is significant. It appears that everything the speakers at this seminar are against (violence, injury, abuse and physical punishment of children) already have no legal defense in NZ.

It is corporal or physical correction, the use of reasonable force by a parent toward a child, which is legally allowed by s59. In fact it is more than just allowed: s59 says parents are “justified” in using such force when done for correction, meaning what they did is legally recognized as the right and proper thing to do.

Why is this, then, the target of these people’s ire? I believe they want to repeal s59 for four reasons:

1) It is obviously patterned after the Bible’s Proverbs 22:15, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him”, therefore the anti-Christian element are opposed to it.

2) It protects and preserves all those parents with a worldview that allows for a disciplined, reasonable use of force and/or pain for the correction of children. Simply because this is at odds with their total rejection of any use of pain in childrearing practices, they are not willing to tolerate it.

3) It specifically protects the family unit from undue intervention by any authority that would interpose itself between parent and child. S59 recognises and acknowledges that parents are the people primarily responsible for rearing children and that the state shouldn’t intrude until it is demonstrated to be a necessity, as in cases of genuine abuse.

4) Because s59 does not perceive “reasonable force” as automatically constituting violence, injury or abuse, as does the anti-spanking lobby, therefore they are committed to its repeal. That is, s59 is an area these masters of Political Correctness will not be tolerant of nor will they celebrate the diversity it represents.

The people we encountered at this conference were united with all decent human beings in their abhorrence of any kind of abuse (physical, emotional, etc.) of children. However there appeared to be at least one notable collective blind spot which I will come to later.

These folks are committed, visionary, network well, some are well-financed and can pull money down from various NGOs as well as from state agencies.

They simply will not accept that any kind of deliberately inflicted pain is necessary to correct children. They seemed even more intolerant of the orthodox, historical Christian position that children are products of the Fall and are therefore born with an in-built sin nature.

These folks not only work their way into organisations that have leverage in the area of political lobbying and providing services to parents and children, they take organisations over and re-organise them to line up with their personal philosophies and/or political agendas.

Like all decent human beings they abhor violence toward children. The problem is that they lump traditional spanking into the same category as the most vile and vicious of beatings. In addition they appear to only ever caricature spanking as a harried parent or some other adult in a parent’s position losing control, going over the top, venting their anger on a smaller person in the same way any school-yard bully would act.

They talk of children’s rights and of parents’ rights. They vehemently oppose any suggestion that parents claim a right to hit children. We are also likewise vehemnently opposed to such a thing. We even oppose the idea that parents have a right to spank their children: parents do, however, have a responsibility and a duty to smack children by way of correction. Framing the arguments in terms of “rights” is totally unhelpful.

They talk of parents’ responsibilities toward their children, to provide the necessities of life, but never talk of children’s responsibilities to honour, respect and obey their parents. They are into extending as much to children as they can, though I didn’t hear anyone talk of child autonomy or independence.

The Children’s Commissioner was especially emphatic that children should be consulted whenever decisions affecting them are to be made, and that we adults need to ask them especially about how we should treat them and learn from them.

(Part 2 to come!)

Craig Smith
26/6/04





Newsletter #24 -- Email wizard for MPs


Dear all,

If you would like to email any MP, a combination of MPs or all MPs in NZ
Parliament about the spanking issue, the Civil Unions Bill, or anything else for
that matter, it's now as easy as anything to do it here:

Democracy is not perfect but its the best we have. Keep this link! It is a
beauty!

Regards,


Craig & Barbara Smith



Family Integrity Newsletter #25 - Pt 2 Seminar Report


Report on Children’s Issues Centre Seminar in Wellington 18-19 June 2004
(Attended by Craig Smith and Genevieve Smith of Family Integrity)

Part 2

The welcome included three Maori Tohunga / Kaumatua. The first talked of his real and expected obedience to his parents, but that you cannot order kids around today. He liked the Pakeha idea of reading to children for it helped them move forward. All three speakers ended with a song in Te Reo. The final one was to the tune of the hymn “How Great Thou Art”.

In Professor Anne Smith’s opening talk (“What Do Children Learn from Being Smacked? Messages from Social Science Theory and Research”), she said they’d been reading the research literature for six months. She had received her first hate mail as a result of this report. (Many people know instinctively that a move to ban s59 is an attack on their family’s integrity, but this hate mail is the kind of irresponsible reaction is not at all helpful. We must help one
another become familiar with the issues so we can communicate with these anti-family, anti-smacking people effectively). She said her only agenda is the present and future health and well-being of children. This statement lost some credibility by what followed, including her statement about “what we think is acceptable within families.” She reviewed some salient facts about life, that there was no one best way to discipline children, that there were vast differences in parenting styles and cultures, that we had to live with this diversity and that she didn’t want to prescribe to others. Research-wise, she said there was no general agreement or consensus between what constituted punishment and abuse. (Remember at all times that s59 of the Crimes Act only offers a legal defence for smacking if it is done for “correction”, not “punishment”.) To determine the difference between punishment and abuse (which really has no relevance to the repeal of s59, remember, since that deals with “correction”, not punishment or abuse) one looked at the frequency of hitting and the severity of hitting. (Note that all the speakers constantly misuse the English language, using the words hitting, beating, smacking and spanking interchangeably. They apparently could not differentiate between different uses of force, simplistically lumping them all together as one.) Professor Smith reviewed some of the difficulties with research of this kind and even asked rhetorically about any and every aspect of research, “But who’s to say what’s normative?” However, after explaining why one needs to be very tentative about drawing any conclusions from the research, she abruptly began using very positive and definite statements such as: “Those who say otherwise are dead wrong”; “Physical punishment does not help internalise moral codes”, “Physical punishment is clearly a health risk.” The last comment is more of an example of using emotive speech. While technically true, going for a swim is also just as clearly a health risk; so is walking across the street.

She said children who are disciplined and not re-affirmed could experience the toxin of rejection, and that we must approach these things holistically, ecologically, for looking at only specific things is not helpful. Yet she did not explore the other ways children experience rejection: giving the child to think he is being dumped at ECEs (early childhood education centres such as kindergarten) and schools for six and seven hours a day, never giving a child full attention or neglecting physical needs. Neither did she explore or explain the near impossibility of measuring any of these factors in a meaningful way, of how problematic it was to try to isolate any one factor in a troubled child’s life and measure its contribution to the child’s troubles. It was especially disappointing that Professor Smith did not explain how the statistics simply cannot show that physical punishment is a “cause” of the troubled child’s negative behaviour, but only that it was associated with that behaviour, in the same way that other studies statistically show that poverty and/or race are often associated with these same negative behaviours. None of the speakers ever looked at spanking as a force used to discipline or to correct or to restore but only as a force used to punish or to control or to restrain. They did not like even the thought of force used to punish or control but did agree that it seemed self-evident a parent must restrain a child from crossing the street or while in a car seat or from poking a knife in a power socket.

Professor Smith had a go at defining the difference between discipline and punishment. Discipline was said to be the guidance of children’s moral, emotional and physical development, enabling them to take responsibility for themselves when they are older. Punishment or corporal punishment was said to be the use of force to cause pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control.

I think she is making a false distinction. She has not defined punishment correctly; it reads more like a definition of spanking. Punishment is ultimately the domain of God, and I believe He may have assigned the State a partial role in this area according to Romans 13: it has to do with vengeance.

Parents are called to discipline and correct, not exact vengeance or punishment.

Her definition of discipline sounds more like disciple: verbal advice and role modelling, with an expectation of voluntary compliance. These folks did not like the idea that parents would ever force their children to do anything.

So what, according to Professor Smith, do children learn from being smacked? She came up with a list we thought made a lot of sense if you were talking about a child in an unpredictable environment where corporal “correction” was not consistent and where corporal “punishment” and striking out in anger by parents was a feature:

1. That inflicting pain is an appropriate way to influence others.
2. That pain is associated with parents (and fear and anxiety toward them).
3. That their security of attachment to their parents is threatened.
4. They learn hostility, anger, lack of trust.
5. They become cautious about exploring the world.
6. They act to avoid pain - egocentricity.
7. They get angry but dare not express the anger, and so externalize it: here
are the roots of early depression.

We thought this list, while probably accurate in the effects produced in dysfunctional homes, certainly does not apply to responsible smacking as Family Integrity defines it. Professor Smith described the “Authoritative” parenting style, which is precisely what Family Integrity endorses: Warmth; Consistency; Having clear boundaries; Clear communications and expectations; Induction and explanation; Rules, boundaries and demands; Consistency and consequences;
Context and involvement; There has got to be some negatives in controlling children’s behaviour. On this last, though, while Family Integrity would protect a parent’s conscientiously felt responsibility to spank, Professor Smith would not.

We would say Professor Smith’s list of 7 things children learn from being smacked is not true of proper smacking applied correctly. Proper smacking in fact does a number of opposite things:

1. Teaches the true nature of God: that using pain to correct helps children understand that God uses painful circumstances in real life to draw us closer to Him, to perfect us, etc., without thinking this is unreasonable etc.
2. Allows children to have a right understanding of justice.
3. Repairs broken relationships. Sin and breaking boundaries sets parents and children at odds with one another. Smackings clear the air and allow reconciliation to occur.
4. Is a quick form of correction, over and done with instantly as opposed to time out, grounding, withdrawing privileges, etc.
5. Lifts the burden of guilt from the child.
6. It is administered for a set of previously communicated infractions. The child understands the evil they have done and accepts the corresponding correction.
7. The parents model appropriate parenting.
8. Attachment is strengthened.
9. No hostility, no anger, just love.
10. When it comes to point 6 above re egocentricity, I believe that the opposite is correct. If you are giving rewards for good behaviour and withholding privileges for bad, etc., this will result in this kind of egocentricity. You will be bribing children to be good rather than teaching them that goodness is a chacteristic required by God as a servant of His and a responsible member of society.


Craig Smith
26 June 2004


Newsletter #26 Some sanity remains in UK






Family Integrity Newsletter #27 - Pt 3 Seminar report


Dear Friends,

I must apologise profusely for not writing and sending this earlier. We just got buried under other obligations.

So this is the third installment of the report of my daughter Genevieve's and my attendance at the "Stop it, it hurts me" workshop in Wellington 18-19 June 2004 sponsored by UNICEF and put on by the Children's Issues Centre of the University of Otago.

At the Workshop, first day:

Dr Cindy Kiro, Commissioner for Children, said there was a domino effect from Poverty in NZ and lack of money: it led to no education, poverty of spirit, cycle of despair and lower motivation. She went on to attack the religious (Christian) rationale for physical punishment, misrepresenting the position as one that demands punishment and retribution. She ended by saying we have a right and a responsibility to intervene into private families in order to stop abuse (which she had conflated with any kind of spanking). She also said we needed to listen to what the children are saying, and ask them for their opinion as to how they should be punished or disciplined.

Tohunga Amster Reedy said, "Our children from the time they are conceived they are taonga." I was stunned by this statement, for it is radically anti-abortion. The implication is that traditional Maori culture is opposed to abortion, but I'd never heard this before. (Taonga means "treasure".)

Presbyterian minister Rev Paul Ranby said some Christians advised not giving punishment when angry: so they go away to cool down and then come back to punish the child. He said he considered that to be evil.

Dr John Angus from Min of Social Development under MP Steve Maharey (who is pro-repeal of s59) was the only moderating voice: he mentioned there were wider issues of maintaining the independence of families and their freedom from over-zealous interventionists. He was openly criticised as a typical politician with an eye only for poll results.

At question time when it looked like I wasn't going to be called on, I stood up. That got me their attention and the microphone. I told them they were misusing the language, that we have so many words such as spank, smack, hit, belt, beat for a reason: they mean different things.
Yet they used "smack" and "hit" and "beat" interchangeably. "Let's try it," I said: "The batsman watched the bowler's delivery and spanked the ball." No, it doesn't work. Then I said they had not yet read the full UNCROC preamble, part of which says, "Bearing in mind that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." And the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Principle 4 states that "special care and protection shall be provided to [the child] and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care." Since these UN documents define a child even as one who is not born, and since Tohunga Amster Reedy just said that from conception our children are taonga, when are we going to do something about the 18,500 children who were killed in their mothers' wombs last year? When are you going to do something about these 50 deaths a day?" Silence. Then Dr Kiro said that raised some issues that needed looking at. But it was time for afternoon tea.

Saturday started with a keynote address from Canadian lecturer Joan Durrant, "Whose Body Is It Anyway: Physical Punishment, Children's Rights and Parental Responsibility." It must be pointed out that all weekend children's rights were held up as what needed strengthening. Parent's rights were said to be needing paring down. Parent's responsibilities were lightly touched upon in relation to providing children with the physical and emotional necessities, and children's
responsibilities were not mentioned at all. (I am not a fan for talking about rights. I believe it is far more helpful to talk about people's responsibilities.)

Joan started her lecture by saying the Children's Rights vs Parent's Rights paradigm was counter-productive, and we needed to get away from that. I couldn't agree more. She spent the next half hour explaining how Sweden got away from it, so she said, by instituting a total Socialist state where the state re-distributes virtually all of everyone's income and openly intervenes at all levels. She painted such a utopian picture, some in the audience were moved to tears and the sighs and groans of longing were audible throughout her presentation, with some asking repeatedly, "Why can't NZ be like that?" She spoke then in terms of children's needs for Provision, Protection and Participation and made the statement that "Societies have the moral and legal obligation to meet these needs." This simple statement, which sounds so good, so logical, is loaded with serious implications. It is a statement from the core of their belief system and world view. It gives the primary responsibility for children's welfare to "society" rather than to parents. If fact, it lifts the responsibility from parents and delivers it to society. Who acts on behalf of "society"? The civil government, the state. It is upon the government's powers of force (through legislation, police and other state agents and redistribution of wealth through taxation) that these socialist-minded folks set their hopes. If only everyone else thought as they did, life on earth would be a paradise, they tell us.

She said that physical punishment is not a parental right on account of two principles: A) the best interests of the child and B) non-discrimination in terms of both age and human rights. She
specifically stated that Sweden does not take the approach, "Children are bad and need to be punished" which is an inaccurate caricature of the orthodox, historical Christian position described in Proverbs 22:15.

Instead they see child rearing as a challenge for problem-solving techniques. She said the Swedes see the state as "beneficent" (her word) and that the "state needs to be free to do what makes life good." Abuse was defined as or regarded as a disciplinary act. That is, to discipline
your child in any physical way is regarded as abuse.

She was very selective in which statistics she used to describe the situation. She explained that the child abuse statistics for Sweden were higher now than before corporal correction was banned not because Swedes had become more abusive, but because it was thought people these days were more likely to report it since it was no longer socially acceptable. She did not put the stats on the overhead. Read some for yourself at:
http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden.html One line from this source says, "The most relevant statistics we have obtained from Sweden are police-record trends in physical abuse of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock, 1992, 1995). Those records showed a 489% increase in the child abuse rate from 1981 to 1994. The same police records also indicated a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors (under 15 in Sweden) from 1981 to 1994." Spanking was banned in Sweden in 1979.

Samoan chief Tino Pereira, a long-time journalist here in NZ, traced missionary activity in Samoa. He said the entire society embraced Christianity because their old religion actually predicted a new religion would come from over seas and the hierarchical system of the church paralleled Samoan society. He summed up Christianity as 1) the Bible as the word of God; 2) the sinful nature of all; 3) violators should be punished. Samoa now sees physical punishment as essential to child rearing. But Mr Pereira said the church has changed and must now provide the forum for a new look at the abusive behaviours.

This mild attack on the church prompted Tohunga Amster Reedy to stand up and launch a more animated attack about how the churches were the first to be torched, and rightly so in his opinion, when the East Cape town of Ruatoria was burnt down a few years ago. Reedy stated that it was his hope at the time that the churches would not be rebuilt. This was met with approving laughter. When he said the churches were, in fact, rebuilt, one heard a chorus of disappointed groans. Mr Pereira looked somewhat uncomfortable during this verbal attack, as he was still at the podium, and did not hesitate to reply, once he regained the floor, in more conciliatory tones.

This was followed by discussion groups. I heard people from various ECE (early childhood education) groups say how they were emboldened to return home to not only re-affirm the "no-spank" zones of their particular institutions, but to also tell the parents that they must not spank in their homes either. In a private conversation with Joan Durrant I outlined the historical Biblical position of fallen children needing the rod of correction to drive out the foolishness. Being from the Canadian Bible Belt, she was very familiar with this concept, but did not believe in it. I asked, "How would that kind of a spank, one done for correction, not punishment or in anger, one motivated by love for the child, a spank that was controlled, measured and judicial, fit within the Swedish legal paradigm?" "It was totally unacceptable," she said: any kind of spank was ruled out of bounds. "So we have a clash of two opposing world views, don't we?" I asked. "Yes, we do," she agreed.

"And ultimately one world view is going to win and the other will have to give way, won't it?" "Yes, that's right," she said.

Christians are expected to tolerate the murder of the unborn, the vileness of homosexuality and the degradation of prostitution in a celebration of diversity and in a live-and-let-live sort of way, even when it is in your face and the broken lives that result are all well documented. But these folks will not tolerate the ancient institution of parental corporal correction in any way, shape or form.

I then went to a seminar by John Hancock, a young barrister who'd done some research on the application of s59 in NZ case law. The wording has a long history in British Common Law, which stipulated "reasonable and moderate" force for "correction" using a "proper instrument", taking into consideration factors such as the child's age and health and in the case of a female that the force was applied in a "decent manner". This seemed from another planet to the assembled group, yet it reveals much of the world view of those days, and indeed, of the world view behind NZ's own S59: very much a Biblical world view, for it assumes children need force applied in a decent way with a proper instrument for correction, as if the statute was written by re-working Proverbs 22:15.

I asked him if the 18 cases he had were an exhaustive list for those years of 1990 - 2002 in which Section 59 was used as a defense in cases of child abuse. He didn't know. Now, Mr Hancock was wanting to repeal Section 59, so I would have thought his presentation would have put Section 59 in a bad light. He outlined 18 cases over those 12 year, meaning it is only tried as a defense 1.5 times a year. Another lawyer in the audience confirmed, when I asked Mr Hancock who didn't really know, that using Section 59 was a rare defense. Genuine abuse was normally more than obvious. In these 18 cases Mr Hancock presented, the parents were found guilty in 10, a retrial was ordered in one and the child was removed from the family in one. The remaining six cases found the parents justified. So I concluded that the argument that child abusers hide behind Section 59 is simply not true.

In fact, the paper Mr Hancock presented was typical for its spin doctoring. It read (and I've left the incorrect grammar just as it was printed: "The section 59 defence has been successfully raised in cases where parents has been prosecuted for hitting their child with a bamboo stick, hitting their child with a belt, hitting their child with a hosepipe, hitting their child with a piece of wood and chaining their child in metal chains to prevent them leaving the house. These successful acquittals have all occurred in jury trials, where the jury has found that such actions have been reasonable, and therefore lawful, means of domestic discipline towards children."

Mr Hancock hands his peers, who could include you and me as members of a jury, a back-handed slur, saying that a group of 12 of us cannot tell when the use of a stick or piece of wood (a wooden spoon?) is "reasonable" and when it is not in disciplining a child. He wants to remove from ordinary citizens as well as from parents the very opportunity to decide if it is reasonable or not. Do note that none of the horrific abuse and child death cases are among those where the Section 59 defense was used: even defense lawyers are smarter than that.

Yet those who want to repeal Section 59 are the first to call for its repeal when children like Coral Burrows and Craig Whakarau are brutally murdered by violent monsters already well-known to CYFS.

Mr Hancock wants us to cringe when we hear about metal chains. In fact, the step-parent chained the 14 year old wayward daughter to himself.

Regards,

Craig Smith
Saturday, 27 November 2004


Family Integrity newsletter #29 - Father jailed for smacking


Fresh in from the UK: a father gets jail for smacking his 6 yo son. Read this and then below I have some comments to make.

Regards,
Craig Smith

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1408569,00.html

Father jailed for smacking

Press Association
Wednesday February 9, 2005
The Guardian

A father has been jailed for smacking his six-year-old son.

The 33-year-old from the Broughton area of north Wales, who cannot be named to protect the identify of the child, was jailed for 42 days after he admitted three charges of assault. Flintshire magistrates' chairman Graham Thomas said it would have been 60 days but for his guilty plea.

The child told police the pain he felt was "like a cheetah biting him". The court heard how the defendant and his partner were separated but their two children regularly stayed overnight with their father. Justin Espie, prosecuting, said the boy and his sister had stayed with their father for a couple of weeks last summer. When he returned home, his mother saw bruising to his thighs and lower back and told the police.

The boy said his father had smacked him and sent him to bed because he had failed to wipe his bottom properly and had soiled his pants. His sister said her father had been very angry and had shouted and said "are you taking the mick or what?" to her brother.

A doctor said the bruising was highly suggestive of a non-accidental injury.

The father admitted that he had smacked his son on three occasions, five times each time. He had believed that it was lawful and reasonable chastisement.

Steve Coupe, defending, said he had not set out to assault his son. He had been smacked as part of chastisement, a last resort, but he now accepted that he had gone over the top and was remorseful.


This father made many mistakes.

First, he was angry. Parents must be in control of their anger. I would suggest this fellow wasn't for the rest of the reasons listed.

Second he was shouting at the child. This is counter productive and damaging, except perhaps in an emergency situation: the child is stepping onto the street or reaching into a hot saucepan.

Third, his spanks were poorly administered, assuming the bruising described came from the smacks: thighs and lower back. This could indicate anger.

Fourth, he smacked for the wrong reason: the child exhibited some immaturity in personal hygiene, not rebellion. Smacking is for rebellious manifestations of foolishness in the heart, not lack of toilet training. It is to correct rebellious behaviour, not behaviour that just happens to get up your nose. It must be demonstrably rebellious. Usually the four Ds cover it: Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty or Destructiveness.

Fifth, in NZ, the law says parents are justified in using reasonable force "by way of correction". This fellow wasn't trying to correct: he was trying to punish or use behaviourist psychology: administer pain so the child would associate pain with that action and not do what he'd done this time.

Sixth, forgive me, but he made a number of mistakes much earlier on which led to the separation from his wife. Now that the family was totally fractured and no longer operating as a unit, he could only realistically expect trouble. That is, child rearing is a team effort, and if mum and dad are not operating on the same wave length, there will be big problems. I totally disagree with everything this father did. But it has wrecked the family even further, causing the (ex)wife to report her own (ex) husband to the police and him getting a prison record. I trust a family working together would never resort to impaling itself on such a skewer.

Now, I'd also like to comment on the legal side. If they ever ban spanking in New Zealand, they will do so because they refuse to recognise the vast difference between violence/abuse and the loving, responsible, judicial, measured use of the rod of correction. They will call it "assault". We must remain firm and clear on this: it is not assault, it is the discharge of a duty to drive the foolishness out of the heart. We must not let even our lawyers, who are supposedly working on our side, to call it assault. It isn't.

The lawyer also used the classic but ill-informed rationale of the enemies of parents' use of the rod of correction: that he started out to spank and went over the top. Spanking is not, emphatically not, on the same continuum as violence or assault. That means that spanking can never possibly escalate into assault with the parent "going over the top, or losing it" or whatever. Spanking isn't even in the same ball park. We must be clear on this. The motivation, methodology, aims, objectives and outcomes of spanking on the one hand and assault on the other are vastly different, poles apart. If one is guilty of assaulting a child, he started off with that kind of unrighteous motivation to begin with: to get revenge, to punish, to save face, or some other thing centred in the selfish perpetrator of the assault, and not centred in a desire for the child's best good, to correct rebellious behaviour and drive the foolishness out of the heart.

Regards,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
Wednesday, 16 February 2005




Family Integrity Newsletter #31 – The Implication of Crimes Act Section 60 to the Repeal Lobby’s Spu


Dear Friends,

The anti-spanking lobby uses many spurious arguments to repeal Crimes Act Section 59. The one, “You wouldn’t spank another adult. What makes it right to spank children?” is rendered invalid by Section 60. Read on: (The full wording of any Act is available at www.legislation.govt.nz . I’ve edited these two sections quoted here.)

The Crimes Act Section 59 says:
Every 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 Crimes Act Section 60 says:

The master...in command of a ship...or the pilot in command of an aircraft...is justified in using...force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline on board his ship or aircraft...if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

Section 60 means one could do more than spank another adult: one could
wrestle him to the ground, hog-tie him and lock him in a room below
deck.

You see, these two sections of the Crimes Act are sitting in their own little sub-category with the title: “Powers of Discipline”. The Act recognizes that historically, all masters of ships, pilots of aircraft and parents of children naturally and logically possess special authority and responsibility over their charges (be they passengers or children).

The anti-spanking lobby wants to repeal Section 59, but not Section 60. Why? Because this would only weaken the authority and responsibility of parents but not that of masters or pilots. Why? Because their agenda is anti-family, not anti-cruise ship or anti-flight: they want to set children “free” from parents, alienating each from the other. They are not interested in the authority captains have over their passengers or what violence they might do them in an emergency. They are only interested in preventing parents from exercising effective authority over their children if it involves spanking.

They want children to be autonomous from parents, although they are not concerned about the loss of autonomy adults get as soon as they board a ship or airplane. Actually, in both cases, the decreased autonomy has been historically recognized as a good thing: passengers do not normally understand the workings and requirements of ships or planes, so captains must have special authority. Children do not understand life or social norms or what constitutes right and wrong, good and bad, until they grow up. So until then, parents are recognized as having a needful amount of authority to train their children in the meantime.

Their agenda is also socialist: they want to transfer parental authority and responsibility away from all us incompetent parents, who cannot be trusted to do things their way, and transfer this authority and responsibility for children to the nanny state. Many of them believe children should belong to the state. Many simply want to use the power of the state to see their pedagogy and child-rearing philosophy forced upon all others.

I’ll tell you what these socialists and social engineers and control freaks fear more than anything else. It is children growing up to be careful, incisive, discerning, independent thinkers. They do not want this current generation taking on board too much of the freedom-loving attitudes of their parents and grandparents, some of whom fought in WWII to preserve this freedom.

Let’s be clear about this: If we give the bureaucrats our children, they’ll know they can come for everything else.

Regards,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity


Family Integrity Newsletter #32 – Press Release


The conviction of Pieter Donselaar for assaulting his son illustrates why NZ needs to preserve Section 59 of the Crimes Act and not repeal it.

Note first that Donselaar was not able to hide behind Section 59 as the anti-smacking lobby always says such brutes routinely do. The fact is that Section 59 is rarely used as a defense and offers no hiding place to criminal assailants.

Note second that the jury was perfectly capable to determine that Doneslaar did not use reasonable force. The force used must pass these two tests: that it is reasonable in the circumstances and is used by way of correction, not vengeance. Juries are also meant to reflect community standards, not those of the anti-smacking lobby group.

The anti-smacking lobby routinely twists the use of language by equating smacking with hitting or beating. When they quote Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) which says member governments will use "all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse", they somehow equate Section 59's "reasonable force" with "violence, injury or abuse". The two are clearly not the same.

While the anti-smacking lobby is fond of quoting UNCROC's Article 19, they studiously avoid UNCROC's preamble which says, in referring to an earlier UN document, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". That is, the anti-smacking lobby appear to be uninterested in the actual killers of 18,500 babies in NZ last year, yet totally absorbed by the possibility that some child assailants might go unpunished. There is a radical inconsistency here.

The anti-smacking lobby knows that repealing Section 59 would expose all good parents to charges of assault for merely grabbing a child by the arm, making him stand in a corner or confining him to his room. None of these would any longer be seen as "reasonable force" for such a defense from prosecution would no longer exist if Section 59 were repealed. That is, if Section 59 were ever removed, parents could be charged with assault for using any force with their children, reasonable or otherwise.

The intention of the anti-smacking lobby is to remove from parents the authority and responsibility they naturally have for their children. A glance at the Crimes Act shows that Sections 59 and 60 are alone in their own separate category with the title, "Powers of Discipline". Section 59 says: "Every 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." Section 60 says: "The master...in command of a ship...or the pilot in command of an aircraft...is justified in using...force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline on board his ship or aircraft...if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."

The Act recognizes that historically, all masters of ships, pilots of aircraft and parents of children naturally and logically possess special authority and responsibility over their charges, be they passengers or children. It would be highly irresponsible and illogical to remove this authority from parents as it is the most basic element of social control we possess. The police and schools will tell you plainly what happens when parents abdicate their authority over their children. We certainly don't need anti-smacking lobby zealots forcibly removing this authority from the rest of us parents.

Section 59 must be retained.

Yours faithfully,
Craig S Smith


Family Integrity Newsletter #34 - Wellington Discussion


Dear Friends,

On Thursday 5 May Genevieve and I travelled to Wellington for a “Political Discussion” put on by the ACT party between Stephen Franks of ACT and Sue Bradford of the Greens on whether Smacking Should Be Made Illegal.

We picked up an old friend and zealous defender of home education, parents’ responsibility to smack and creation science on the way down and happily met two other dads who made their way to The Dog and Bone on Lambton Quay for the lunch-time talk.

It was a discussion with the two protagonists making statements then the MC handing a mic around to those who wished to comment. Genevieve and I had a fresh batch of Family Integrity brochures printed and made sure everyone there got a set. We met some of the same people (from EPOCH, Barnardos, Plunket, etc.) who were at the “Stop It” conference back in June last year. They were nearly evenly matched this time and the discussion had strong points made on the pro-parent, pro-Section 59 side. The other side really doesn’t have any strong points, but only appeals to emotions and what I would call a dishonest use of words and statistics plus shonky logic. One lady from Plunket talked to four of us for quite a time trying to convince us that if there is even a risk of children being abused, it is worth repealing Section 59. By this logic, of course, we’d need to chop down all the trees and adventure playgrounds because of the risk that children might fall from them.

They also admitted that they see any and all physical discipline as violent. They also agreed that yelling at children or using sarcasm was often just as bad as physical abuse. The logic of that says that we need to make yelling at children and using sarcasm illegal as well.

Sue Bradford came out and said it clearly: this whole thing is “ideologically” driven. That was the word she used. So it is not about what is right and proper, it is about her ideas that children should have the same respect as adults, and be treated the same way. Of course, if one tried to change Ms Bradford’s clothes or feed her or bathe her, she would have them for assault. If we parents FAILED to do those things for our dependent children, we’d be done for neglect. Somehow the anti-smacking lobby fails to see the dependent relationship of parent and child. They want to put the state in there between parent and child.

Yours for Family Integrity.
Craig Smith


Family Integrity Newsletter #35 - On Radio NZ


Dear Friends,

Looks like I'll be on Radio NZ this Thursday at 11:05am to talk about
smacking. They've got Brian Donnelly, myself and a dad who recently got
into trouble when he shoved his teenaged son who then went to the
police. Let's pray it goes well.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director


Family Integrity Newsletter #36 - Parental authority at stake


Dear Friends of Family Integrity:

The following appeared in Maxim Institute's "Real Issues" #161. It is ok as far as it goes. Please read it and my reply to it below. We must think about what we say, or else end up using the enemies' arguments against ourselves, as Maxim has ended up doing here.

Regards,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity


From Maxim Institute:
Parental authority at stake
Politicians loathe conscience votes close to an election. Perhaps that is why both Labour and National are taking party positions on Green MP Sue Bradford's private members bill. Her bill, which was pulled from the ballot last week, seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.
The debate around section 59 has been deeply confused - but it should not be. Child abuse is unacceptably high in New Zealand and must be addressed. The legal recognition of parents' authority over their children is an important part of tackling the problem. There is no clear correlation between countries with low rates of child maltreatment and those that have banned all physical discipline.
Despite frequent debate about the merits or dangers of smacking as a form of discipline, section 59 actually says nothing about striking a child. It provides a legal defence for parents who discipline their children using "reasonable force". It respects the rights of parents to impose (force) their will on their child. Every form of discipline does this. Even placing a child in 'time out' requires the use of "reasonable force". The defence exists for parents to allow them to act in the best interests of their child, even against the child's own wishes. This is because the parent-child relationship is unique.
Certainly child abuse is always wrong - but it is already illegal. Several recent cases involving the use of section 59 have raised questions about the ability of juries to determine what constitutes "reasonable force". If this is indeed the case, then we should consider amending section 59 to make it more explicit; but repealing it altogether would be one more step towards treating children as mini-adults who are completely independent from their parents and subject only to the state. Strengthening the natural family unit is central to improving children's wellbeing, and this is where the focus should be.
The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill is due to be debated for the first time in July.


Family Integrity Responds to Maxim:

Dear Friends,

Just a wee comment about Sue Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59. It is, of course, totally unworkable, as you point out. But you didn't point out that should Section 59 be repealed, parents using ANY force whatsoever, including the forced restriction of a child to his room or making him eat all his vegetables, would expose those parents to charges of criminal assault. Parents would become criminals whenever they force their will upon a child. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Neither must we then turn around and partly agree with Bradford and take the first step toward Section 59's repeal by saying "we should consider amending section 59 to make it more explicit" because we're not sure "about the ability of juries to determine what constitutes "reasonable force"." This is calling the intelligence and ability and integrity of our peers, the members of the jury, into question. This is nothing more than a ploy of Sue Bradford and co......since none of their arguments make any sense anyway, they'll make up ridiculous, slanderous accusations against these unknown jurors, who are our peers, even you and I at times. Assault is defined in law; the prosecution will ensure the jury will know the nuances of Section 59....tinkering with it will ultimately tear it down.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity Newsletter #37 - Six of the Best


The following is an article about Commissioner for Children Cindy Kiro’s response to the mum from Palmerston (South) who gave her son “six of the best” and was justified by the jury. I was recently visiting Oamaru, just north of the town of Palmerston, and the folks there told me that the school of the boy who received the “six of the best” was simply delighted with the boy’s improved behaviour.

After the article is a letter I wrote to editors all over the country....it was published in Timaru at least.

Regards,
Craig Smith


http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3294678a10,00.html
Call for law change after 'six of the best' verdict
27 May 2005
By COLIN MARSHALL

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants a law change after a North Otago woman who give her son "six of the best" with a bamboo cane and several strikes with a horse whip was found not guilty of assault.

In Timaru District Court yesterday, a jury took just over an hour to find the 39-year-old woman not guilty.

Dr Kiro said today that the use of the whip and cane, the woman's admission of what she did, and the fact the beatings left marks indicated child abuse.

"To be quite frank I am amazed that it would be considered anything other than that...these are all elements of a child abuse investigation and they are all present."

In the Timaru court case, the woman admitted giving her son "six of the best" with a cane for misbehaving at school and striking him three to four times with a horse whip after the boy waved a baseball bat at her partner.

Dr Kiro said even people who supported the continuation of allowing the use of reasonable physical force by parents under section 59 of the Crimes Act did not want the use of implements to be allowed.

She said New Zealand had one of the highest rates of child death from maltreatment in the developed world, ranking about fifth out of 27 countries.
"We seem to have an attitude that continuing to basically hit our children is acceptable and it's certainly not acceptable."

She said the jury's verdict sent a clear message such child abuse was acceptable.
Section 59 needed to be repealed immediately as jury's generally were supporting parents over children when court action was taken.

"New Zealanders have very ambivalent attitudes about the use of physical discipline against children. I think on one hand most of us, not, all, have experienced it. Most of us were raised by parents who basically hit us, Dr Kiro said.

"They did it in moments of anger. This is often about parents venting their anger... not about teaching children how to behave properly."

She said there were better ways to discipline children.

"I've been a parent and I know how stressful it can be.

"I can understand exactly what drives people to feeling so frustrated that they want to hit their child. But I just think you shouldn't do it."

Dr Kiro said punishments should not be cruel or degrading - she had heard of children being forced to eat hot chillies, washing mouths out with soap or being made to sit still on a chair for hours one end.

"I get to see some of the data from Child Youth and Family.

"People would be incredulous at some of the things that are devised as punishment for children. They are totally humiliating and degrading and I don't know why people persist in this type of behaviour."


My response:

I am amazed at Dr Cindy Kiro for so quickly condemning a jury of her peers for agreeing that the North Otago woman who administered six of the best to her son was justified in using this force. You can be sure they were drilled in the nuances of Section 59: that the force had to be reasonable in the circumstances and that it had to be for the purposes of correction, not vengeance. The jury only took an hour to come to a conclusion that both of these factors were present. They had all the facts before them. Dr Kiro does not.

Dr Kiro is intimating that these 12 jurors are too thick to tell the difference between reasonable force and abuse. Such condescension is breathtaking. It is a form of bullying and intimidation when it comes from someone in her position of power and authority.

Worse still is her caricature of parents who smack their children. She assumes parents smack their children when, at the end of their tether, they explode in anger and frustration. She is free to speak about her own parenting experiences this way and to denigrate her own parents who, she says, “basically hit us”, but again, she errs greatly in painting the rest of us in these outrageous colours. I greatly resent her slur on both my parents and me. I further wish to advise Dr Kiro in all sincerity that such inappropriate and uninformed comments call her credibility into serious question.

Craig Smith


Family Integrity Newsletter #39 - Repeal would be uncivilised


Greetings all,

I have stumbled across a nest of research showing that the Swedish experiment, banning smacking back in 1979, has not been the wonderfully liberating social development we’ve heard spoken of for 25 years now.

No. Instead, more and more social scientists are having a closer look and finding some real problems. Here below is just a wee teaser.

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



From: Family Facts, Canada
Full article at:
http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/analysis/020204.html
Parents Are Still Alright: Disciplinary Discretion Upheld in Highest Court


Spanking has become a point of contention in Canada and around the world. Organizations have formed to question the effectiveness of spanking and to encourage parents to eliminate its use. Recently a coalition used the courts in an attempt to define spanking as abuse and make it illegal - a move that if successful would have made criminals of countless loving Canadian parents.

Several European countries have already gone down this road and banned all forms of corporal punishment.[1] Sweden has been the frontrunner on this issue, and in 1979, made corporal punishment illegal. Unfortunately, much of the research that has studied the effects of this law has been biased and methodologically flawed. Currently, researchers are re-analyzing the data, improving on the methodology, and discovering that Sweden's anti-spanking (a.k.a. smacking) experiment has not been as
successful as originally reported. Dr. Robert Larzelere writes:

“While having the appearance of being altruistic and humanitarian, the 1979 law has let to unwarranted interference in private and family life, and has caused serious damage to the relationship between parents and their children, to the detriment of the family.

“Before the Bill abolishing the physical punishment of children was presented to the Swedish Parliament, several leading lawyers expressed strong misgivings. Their fears that the law would lead to prosecutions of parents who employed mild physical sanctions, while doing nothing to reduce the number of cases of genuine child abuse, have materialized. The damage caused by this legislation is so serious that it should not be followed by any civilized country. Rather, Sweden needs the help of other nations to have this destructive legislation repealed.” [2]


Notes:
1. Austria (1989), Croatia (1999), Cyprus (1994), Denmark (1997), Finland (1993), Germany (2000), Latvia (1998), Norway (1987), Sweden (1979).

2. Larzelere, Robert D. (2001) Families First. Issue 2, Autumn 2001. “Sweden: data does not support success claims” p. 15.


Family Integrity Newsletter #40 - Bradford's bill faulty


Greetings all!

Our second ad is in this morning's Dominion Post. The first one was in last Wednesday's Dominion.

Sue Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, due to come before Parliament on Wednesday 27 July, is titled:

Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

See the entire Bill at:
http://www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpprint/docs/bills/20052711.txt

Clause 3 of the Bill reads:
3 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.

You will notice that both the title and clause 3 are hopelessly illogical: how can force be a justification for disciplining children?

It is a method, not a justification. As Bradford has written it, this is a nonsense.

But also read her introduction to the Bill, the Explanatory Note:

"The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence and harm under the pretence of domestic discipline, being inflicted on children. Presently, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 acts as a justification, excuse or defence for parents and guardians using force against their children where they are doing so for the purposes of correction and the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. The Bill will repeal that provision. The effect of this amendment is that the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians will be removed. They will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, a comparatively new provision in the criminal law, and the repeal of section 59 ought not revive any old common law justification, excuse or defence that the provision may have codified."

She makes it clear that "the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians will be removed." Her first observation in relation to this is how it removes from law any recognition of the special relationship of care, love, responsibility and authority of a parent toward a child: "They will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned."

And the result of that removal she then spells out: "The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act."

Parenting is a monumental task. To properly express parental care, love, responsibility and authority requires all kinds of force, force that is expressed in many different ways and methods. Smacking is only one such force. It is used to correct manifestations of rebellion in children such as the four Ds: Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty, Destructiveness. Other kinds of force are used when a parent dresses a child, tells them to come in out of the rain, makes them eat their veggies and then brush their teeth, to go with you to church, to go to bed now or else, to be sure NOT to watch that certain video while visiting at Jimmy's place up the road, etc., etc. Sometimes the force is physical, sometimes it is verbal intimidation, sometimes it is the imposition of the parent's will on that of the child, sometimes it is an appeal to a family habit or tradition. At any time an onlooker who held to a philosophy of child autonomy could decide that none of these things was right to impose on a child without the child's expressed desire that they happen, and then go complain to the authorities. At any time the child could decide he didn't want to go along with the parent's wishes/commands, and then go complain to the authorities. Since the legal justification for using force of any kind is removed by the repeal of Section 59, such complaints would not be scoffed at but taken dead seriously. As Bradford points out, "the use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act." That is the use of any force, not just smacking.

This Bill goes way over the top. It criminalises most acts of parenting.

It will cause parents to live in constant fear of being charged with abuse. This Bill must be voted down and tossed out.


Please pass this message on to as many folks as you know. Please write these things to your MP.

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity Newsletter #42 - desperate


Greetings all!

Tomorrow the Bill to repeal Section 59 is being introduced to Parliament for its first Reading, or vote, to see if it will progress any further along the Parliamentary system.

Time for one last email to the MPs telling them to vote against it. Here is a link to help you do it now, quickly and easily:
http://www.votersvoice.org.nz/%7Evoters/mail/massmailerMPs.cgi
Scoop news service had a desperate attempt by Save the Children and Plunket and Commissioner for Children to find a piece of research that might support their position of wanting to repeal Section 59, that is, ban smacking.

Check it out at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00281.htm
The survey was apparently in a magazine and a response by readers of that magazine, titled “Tots to Teens”.

In case anyone was unsure about it, this method of data gathering is totally unprofessional and statistically useless. The people responding were already self-selected as readers of a particular magazine, rather than a random sampling of New Zealand’s population.

So all the article at the scoop link above can claim is that readers of that magazine may fit their description, but not New Zealanders as a whole. You will notice, however, that they claim the results are representative of all of New Zealand parents. This is just plain unethical. Desperation drives the unprincipled to do dirty things.


Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Family Integrity Newsletter #43 - Ban thinking deeply flawed


Greetings all!

As the debate has revved up in the blogs and over the email discussion groups, more and more aspects of the dangers of this Bill to repeal Section 59 come to the fore.

Because our pre-teenaged children clearly are incapable of giving legal consent, virtually anything we do to them is classed as force against them. If Section 59 is ever repealed, any show of force with our children becomes illegal, an act of criminal assault according to Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act. Did you know that hugging your child against its will, picking it up and carrying it to its room as well as giving it a smack…any of these acts will see you facing a possible maximum two year jail sentence?

When the UK faced a similar dilemma last year, Normal Wells wrote in The Times of 5 July, on behalf of Family & Youth Concern: “If we are seriously concerned about the protection and welfare of children, we should not pursue a ban on smacking, and should resist the attempt of a vocal minority to impose their own views on parental discipline by force of law.

“A ban on smacking would not give children more protection, but less. It would divert already overstretched child protection resources away from the children who need them most, and expose happy children from loving homes to the trauma and potential damage of police and social service interventions, even though they are at no risk of harm.

“In Sweden, the 1979 smacking ban contributed to a 489% increase in physical child abuse cases classified as criminal assaults from 1981-1994, and the perpetration of criminal assaults against 7-14 year-olds is increasing most rapidly in age groups raised after the law against smacking was passed. According to Unicef, Sweden’s rate of child maltreatment deaths differs very little from that of the UK, and of the five countries with the lowest rates of child abuse deaths, only one has a ban on smacking.

“Parents have a unique relationship with their children, bearing unique responsibilities and unique powers, and an occasional disciplinary smack is by no means incompatible with a warm family life where children are loved and cherished. It is ludicrous to suggest that there is no difference between loving physical correction by a parent and a violent assault perpetrated by a stranger. There are many things that parents do to and for their children every day that would be quite inappropriate, if not illegal, to do to another adult, which is why the anti-smacking lobby’s appeal to the principle of ‘equality’ is so deeply flawed.”



Newsletter #44 - Stakes too High


Greetings all!

We occasionally hear the argument that repeal of S.59 will only mean the police will have greater freedom to go for the abusers and that they won't waste their time on common sense harmless whacks on the backside in the supermarket.

I've written off to the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General, the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice to ask:

"Should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, what assurances can
you give to the parents of New Zealand that they will not be charged
with assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act if they subsequently were to smack their child(ren) on the clothed buttocks with an open hand by way of corrective discipline?"


When I get authoritative answers from these folks, then I might relax a wee bit. Until then, I am inclined to let the negative experience of
Sweden plus common sense (why make a law you never intend to enforce?)guide me. The stakes (a charge of criminal assault, losing my children, spending up to two years in jail) are simply too high for me to take a laid-back attitude to this.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #46 -- Bill went through first reading


The Bill to repeal Section 59 had the first reading tonight and passed 65 to 54. So it will now proceed to a Select Committee and be open for public debate and the making of submissions. None of that is likely to happen until after the elections.

I must say, we listened to the speeches just prior to the vote. Those in favour of the bill spoke to the topic and trotted out their normal rhetoric, much of it quite plainly false and misleading, such as the continual claim that they are not out to criminalise parents who give a wee smack. But that is precisely what the effect of repeal will be. Those who spoke against the Bill were useless...they rambled on, wasted time in telling dumb and self-incriminating stories, and generally acted as if they'd done no home work on the Bill.

It was very disappointing.

The brochure printing is held up, but we should see them Saturday. We will certainly have plenty of occasion now to hand them out far and wide as the issue is going to be with us for quite a few more months yet.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #47 -- Vote in Poll


Dear Friends,

Please go to the Stuff news website:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/


and vote in the poll on the right hand side of the page...it may be just off-screen, so scroll down a wee bit.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #49 -- SPCS Press Release


For immediate Release..........

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS
PO Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz spcs.org@gmail.com


Media Release
9 August 2005

"Every Child Counts" Anti-Smacking Lobby Dishonesty

"It is quite dishonest for the lobby group Every Child Counts (ECC) to tell the public that it "supports call for Section 59 repeal" (Media release 13/6/05 issued shortly after Sue Bradford's bill was successfully balloted for debate), says Society president Mike Petrus.

ECC spokesperson, Dr Emma Davies, stated: "Repeal of section 59 would ensure consistent messages about the unacceptability of violence against children and remove the legal defence in situations of serious assaults against children [sic]". Dr Davies knows that the repeal of s. 59 forms no part of ECC's four "key policy goals" of its Policy Overview Statement to which its affiliated organisatons and individual supporters have given their support. ECC has failed to retract Dr Davies false claim, despite having received a complaint from an affiliate organisation, that, like many others, has never adopted a position either for or against repeal of Section 59. ECC's falsehood continues to be propogated through Green Party MP Sue Bradford who is determined to promote the repeal of s. 59 through her private member's bill: the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

Ms Bradford has issued misleading statements in media releases and in parliament claiming that ECC supports the repeal. In a Green Party blogsite update, issued on the same day of the ECC media release (13/6/05), it stated: "Add ... Every Child Counts to the list of organisations supporting Sue B's Bill." Sue Bradford has made no effort to correct this falsehood nor her outrageous and libellous claim that a woman acquitted by a jury of her peers in the Timaru Court of a charge of assault against her son, was a "child abuser" who had assaulted him with a "horse whip".

In parliament she asked Rick Barker: "Why is the Government not prepared to repeal section 59 immediately, when results of the court case in Timaru last week [Timaru Herald 24/5/05] so clearly showed that this law still allows parents to assault and beat their children-in this case with a horse crop and a cane?"

According to Dr Davies, ECC is "a coalition including Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef NZ and AUT's Institute of Public Policy, supported by more than 250 other organisations and thousands of individual supporters" (13/6/05). The number of affiliated organisations has now risen to over 330 and yet none of them have been notified by ECC that the repeal of s. 59, or the referral of Bradford's bill to a select committee, is supported by ECC. It continues to invite the public "to demonstrate their support for the nation's children by adding their names to the Every Child Counts campaign" while at the same time misleadingly and deliberately presents itself to the public as a coalition of members who are ALL opposed to smacking and the repeal of s. 59.

Granted, some individual affiliates within ECC, such as Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef NZ and AUT's Institute of Public Policy do oppose smacking of children and support the repeal of s.59. Some have even issued media releases stating their individual positions clearly. However, it is quite dishonest for ECC to seek to campaign for new affiliates and issue media releases on behalf of all affiliate organisation that presents the entire organisation as opposed to smacking and supporting the repeal of s. 59.

Despite the complaint of misrepresentation from an affiliate member noted, ECC issued yet another media release on the day the politicians debated whether to refer Bradford's bill to select committee. In it ECC called for MPs to send the bill to the select committee even though nothing in the ECC Policy Overview Statement even suggests that this is its positon on the bill. By representing all its affiliate organisations and individual members as calling for MPs to vote this way, it sent a clear signal to the public that ECC is a lobby group that wants s.59 repealed.

The bottom line is that Every Child Counts IS just a lobby group determined to have Section 59 of the Crimes Act repealed (this section permits parents and caregivers to use "reasonable force" on children in certain circumstances involving domestic discipline). ECC has four key policy issues which all the 330 plus affiliated organisations have agreed to. These are: putting the child at the centre of policy development, giving children a good start, ending child poverty and reducing child abuse and neglect. The Society supports these broad aims but is opposed to the repeal of s. 59 (see our website www.spcs.org.nz). It believes that this claimed quick-fix solution to curing the nation's social/moral disease of "child abuse" is misguided and erroneous in law.

ECC claims that its primary focus is that children should be at the centre of all policy development and implementation. However, children have mothers and fathers who are responsible as primary care-givers for their nurturing, discipline, social well-being etc. ECC has adopted no formal position on section 59 it claims, it wishes to keep its focus on the strategic level of promoting to political parties and to the public a sustainable future through placing children at the centre of policy. However, it has positioned itself as one of the key anti-smacking lobby groups calling for the repeal of s. 59.

Newsletter #50 --long SPCS article

Greetings all,

David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (SPCS) has written a lengthy article outlining the issues around repeal of Section 59. Have a read of it at:

http://www.spcs.org.nz/article.php?sid=59&PHPSESSID=124a5ea14723357170b8598c82effd8d


Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Our Home....Our Castle
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Sue Bradford’s Bill to Repeal s. 59 of Crimes Act 1961 Criminalises all Parents

Press Release 2 August 2005

Bradford’s Repeal of s. 59 Criminalises all Parents

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0508/S00033.htm

When asked by TV2’s “Eye to Eye” host, former MP Willie Jackson, “Do you accept [the use of] mild physical discipline [on children]?” Green Party MP Sue Bradford did not answer the question. However, she did make it clear that her long-term legislative goal was to criminalise smacking. “I accept that at this time it’s too soon in this country to criminalise parents who lightly smack their children, therefore I’m simply wanting to repeal existing [legislation].” This evasive yet revealing reply led Jackson to restate the question: “But do you think it’s OK to smack your kids?” Bradford replied. “Personally no, but I’d like to see the day when we no longer use that [light smacking] but I think we have a long way to go. We have a lot of education to do”.

Let’s be clear and unmask the real Ms Bradford. She vehemently denies publicly that she is promoting what the media have dubbed the “anti-smacking bill” and would prefer instead to call it the “anti-hitting” bill, yet she actually wants nanny state to make laws that would criminalise all parents who lightly smack their kids, to enforce parental compliance. If she and her anti-smacking brigade could ensure compliance through education, which they know they cannot do (the anti-smacking campaign has been going since 1995), they have no qualms about forcing legal constraints on parents by way of legislation. What she and her supporters fail to realise is that her bill as drafted, if passed into law, would have the effect of criminalising all parents who not only smack their kids, but also all parents who use any form of “reasonable force” against children, regardless of the circumstances.


Holding down an uncooperative baby so that his or her soiled nappies can be changed and moving an uncooperative kid to a room for “time-out” as a discipline measure, both involve the use of “reasonable force” by parents and caregivers. An Anglican vicar seeking to baptise an infant who is struggling against the ‘indignity’ of a public sprinkling indulges in “reasonable force” against an infant to satisfy the parents desire to complete the sacrament. Many of us have witnessed such acts of ‘defiance’ that require measured ‘violence’ to control. (One wonders how Sue Bradford who is a strong supporter of a woman’s “abortion rights”, sleeps at night, mindful of the brutal violence of state-sanctioned and state-funded abortionstists who have murdered 100,000 innocent unborn children while the current Labour government has been in office).

Ms Bradford’s private members bill - the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill – that repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee last week following its first reading. Ms Bradford is no doubt well intentioned in wanting to address the serious problem she calls “the culture of violence” against children in our country. However, the Society believes the repeal of s. 59 will do nothing to address the root causes or shocking symptoms of this violence. Instead it will have a seriously negative impact on many families whose parents seek to and effectively apply good parenting techniques in the discipline of their children.

Ms Bradford and her supporters such as Ms Beth Wood, spokeswoman for UNICEF and “anti-smacking group Epoch (End Physical Punishment of Children), Dr Cindy Kiro, Children’s Commissioner and Kaye Crowther, Plunket president, are determined to remove all legal protections to good parents who choose to smack their kids for serious wrongdoing as a means of discipline. The Explanatory note to the bill states that “the repeal of section 59 ought not revive any old common law justification, excuse or defence [for the use of “reasonable force” including smacking] that the provision may have codified.”

During the first reading of the bill Labour MP John Tamahere, a qualified lawyer, told the house that “as currently drafted,” the bill “criminalises all parents” who use “reasonable force” (such as smacking) in correction and discipline. It actually goes further than this by making a parent a criminal – able to be charged with a technical assault - if they even threaten to use “reasonable force” (such as mild smacking or physical removal) to discipline a child. Neither Bradford nor any of the bill’s supporters have made any attempt to directly refute this serious charge that has been made by many opponents of the bill. They merely avoid the issue by making three spurious claims in response: (1) it is not their intention of the bill to open the way for such parents to be charged and/or prosecuted for smacking their kids. [Note: even though these are the very effects of the law change], (3) “in relation to parents the purpose of the bill is educative, not punative” and (3) the police will not lay charges against parents who smack kids or use “reasonable force” following the repeal of s.59.

In response to the first claim, one must emphasise that what matters is not the intention of bill’s architect, but its legal effects. The legal effect of setting a speed limit for motor vehicles on the open road is to constitute all drivers who go above the limit as law-breakers, who can be prosecuted, convicted and punished for the offence. It was never the intention of lawmakers to treat or consider such offenders as something less than offenders, nor to have law enforcement agents turn a blind eye to offending. If promoters of the Bradford’s bill sincerely believe that all mild smacking of children by parents constitutes “violence,” “assault” and “abuse” against children, as they clearly do; seek to remove the defence clause found in s. 59 and state that their long term goal in its removal is to move to have all parents who smack their kids criminalised; then its understandable that the bill’s opponents find their political posturing and rhetoric so full of “double-speak”. This is sad in view of the fact that the bill’s opponents and supporters are all totally opposed to all forms of real “child abuse” as represented by those tragic cases where offenders have been convicted under present law.

The second claim that the purpose of the bill in relation to parents is “educative rather than punitive” is dishonest. It purposely misleads by its relies on the false premise that there is no justification or benefit whatsoever for physical discipline (e.g. mild smacking) in good parenting. The repeal of s. 59 would be punitive in denying all good parents, who at times may find a need to use “reasonable force” in discipline etc, one of the tools needed in good parenting as well as open the way for them to be charged for the use of such ‘force’. Current evidence suggests that non- abusive smacking for a 2-6 year old is effective for acts of defiance over the options of timeout, reasoning and removing privileges. The 2004 research report of the Children’s Issues Centre at Otago University 2004 states: “occasional physical punishment occurs in many families and may not have long-term negative effects as long as it is used in a climate of warmth and love, where the predominant mode of relating to children is positive”.

The third claim by the bill’s supporters is also false. Police would be duty bound to act once a complaint of “assault” or “child abuse” is laid against a parent or caregiver. It is irrelevant whether the police will prosecute for such a minor offence as mild smacking. What is more relevant is that parents who discipline their children should be allowed to do so without breaking the law.

While it is true that the police work within the guidelines and protocols set out by child abuse teams, before laying charges, these protocols, once s. 59 is repealed, will promote the idea that all physical discipline constitutes “child abuse” and “assault”. Whether or not police lay charges may well depend on the level of pressure exerted by the complainant(s) and/or child advocacy agency/agencies seeking a prosecution. Critics of repeal of s. 59 point out the philosophically-driven, paternalistic zealots opposed to smacking who currently seek to foist their dogmatic views on others by informing parents that smacking constitutes a criminal offence.

At present, when a complaint comes to police, the child abuse the child abuse team/ serious abuse team protocol between police and CYF comes into play. CYF guidelines state:

“Every notification is treated seriously and sensitively and all notifiers treated with respect. Intervention under the CYP&F Act must ensure that the child or young person is protected from harm, but every effort should be made to limit the damage and disruption to the child's relationship with their family or whanau.”

Section 59 in the Crimes Act 1961 acknowledges the special circumstances involved in the parental task of providing good discipline to children and provides a freedom to parents to use common sense and apply good parenting skills.

Section 59 (Domestic discipline) states: “Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a 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 reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.”

National MP Dr Richard Worth was quite right when he stated on “Eye to Eye”, that the repeal of s. 59 will expose all parents and caregivers who use “reasonable force” against their children, to potential prosecution under s. 194(a) of the Act: they would be “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years” for assaulting any child under the age of 14 years. With the removal of the legal defence under s. 59 all parental actions involving “force” of any kind used will be constituted as acts of “assault” in all circumstances. Dr Worth warned that private prosecution(s) could be lodged by any citizen(s) against any parent(s) or caregiver9s) who they considered to have used “force” against a child/children and the police would have to act on the charge(s).

With s. 59 repealed all those charged would lose the right to have the facts of the case examined by a jury of 12 of their peers to consider the defence of “reasonable force”. They would face being treated in law like any other adult facing a charge of assault against another adult. The unique parental-child relationship consideration would be lost from the law while other defence provisions applying exclusively to adults ‘assaulting’ other adults would remain (eg. s. 60 see below). To be consistent Ms Bradford should be pressing for the repeal of all of these on the grounds of ‘discrimination’! It is ironic that the Children’s Commissioner’s Office agues that the repeal of s. 59 “would remove current discrimination against children” and yet the other statutory defences to “assault” benefiting adults who ‘assault’ other adults remain (e.g. s 60).

The vast majority of New Zealand parents deeply love their children, do all they can to correctly discipline their children so they learn that there are consequences to wrongdoing and abhor all forms of child abuse and violence against children. It is these outstanding loving parents who would be criminalised if Ms Bradford’s bill became law. She and her misguided supporters deliberately conflate the controlled and measured use of smacking with “abuse” and “violence”. By the fallacious substitution of some pejorative noun such as “hitting”, “violence”, “assault” or “abuse” for “smacking”, they have attempted to subvert the use of language. Their linguistically strained rhetoric is dishonest. They fail to make any distinction between forms of smacking that obviously do constitute child abuse (e.g. that which physically harms the child and is delivered in rage by out of control dysfunctional parents, against the will of the child) and that which is a reasonable, punitive and corrective involving willing compliance to the discipline, following full explanation of and admission to wrongdoing by the child.

Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro argues that the repeal of s. 59 of the Crimes Act “would mean one group in society could no longer be legally assaulted,” and this provision in law allows for “state sanctioned violence” against children. This claim is fallacious. It is deliberately misleading as it fails to recognise the clear distinction in law between a technical “assault” and an action which is a criminal offence - due to its real nature (a criminal assault for which the offender is or could realistically be convicted after circumstances are taken into full account). The statutory and common-law defences for “assault” recognise these distinctions.

Under the Crimes Act the technical definition is given: ``Assault'' means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and ``to assault'' has a corresponding meaning.

Contrary to Dr Cindy Kiro’s assertion, there is nothing in our law that gives a right to “one group in society”, namely parents or caregivers, to legally “assault” (for which a criminal conviction could be served) any other group, including their children, or children under their care. Nor is there a law that allows for or condones children or any other group being “assaulted” by any other group. Ms Kiro deliberately misrepresents the law, conflating an act of “reasonable force,” such as mild smacking applied in discipline, with those truly violent and abusive acts that have led to convictions for (criminal) “assault” under the law. The latter are inhuman acts for which s. 59 offers no real defence to the offender because jurors and judges find distinguishing between crimes of “child abuse” and criminal “assault” as opposed to the actions of parents applying “reasonable force” in circumstances involving discipline and correction, very straight-forward.

Section 59 does allow for a legal defence, albeit one rarely used, in those situations when charges are brought against a parent or caregiver for assaulting their child and the defendant asserts that the force used constituted “reasonable force” in “circumstances” such as those involving parental discipline. It is not a provision in law that legalises parents or caregivers to actually commit harmful violent criminal acts on children that would be actual “assault” (such as have led to criminal convictions). Its intention is to safeguard the rights of parents and caregivers against a charge of ‘assault’ in those rare cases, when the facts of the case can be established to the satisfaction of a 12 member jury that the force applied was “reasonable” and appropriate in the circumstances and did NOT constitute a criminal action involving real harm.

Dr Kiro claims that repeal of s. 59 will simply remove a legal defence that is used when parents seriously assault their children - a defence that is not available in situations of assault against adults, animals or any other group in our society.

However, the Bill’s supporters are absolutely wrong to suggest that s. 59 was put into the Crimes Act so that parents or caregivers who seriously assault their children can take refuge in this provision to give legal support to their criminal actions against children. On the contrary it is there so that serious allegations of assault against parents and caregivers are dealt with in the proper context of the adult-child relationship that may justify a “reasonable” use of “force” in “circumstances” involving for example parental correction and discipline.

S. 59 parallels the provision in law under s. 60 that allows for “the use of force” for specific purposes by aircraft and ship masters or officers against members of the public, including children.

Section 60 says: Discipline on ship or aircraft. The master or officer in command of a ship… or the pilot in command of an aircraft… is justified in using and ordering the use of force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline… if he believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary, and if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

NZ Law recognises that Parents, Pilots and Masters need to have the authority and powers of discipline to properly care for their charges, be they children or passengers. The "Repeal Section 59 lobby" wants to remove this authority only from the parents, not from pilots and masters. The repeal lobby appears not to trust parents to come to the same narrow conclusions they hold: that no force at all should be applied to children. Lobby leaders like Sue Bradford MP are quite clear as to their long-term social-engineering goals: they want smacking and all forms of physical discipline abandoned by ALL parents and caregivers, even if it means legislating against it.

A seriously flawed survey reported on in the Dominion Post (27/7/05) carried out by The Littlies Lobby in conjunction with the Childrens Commission, is headlined as providing support for the end of smacking. “Survey supports end to smacking … Child advocates say the findings suggest support for a law change is increasing”.

Such a headline is nonsense. The study involving a self-selecting group of participants only had one question in it that related to smacking and had none dealing with the repeal of s. 59. The finding only showed that 71% of the 1367 readers of “The Tots to Teens” magazine, who chose to take part in the survey, believed that "smacking when they [children] do things wrong" was the least effective way to guide children to behave well. However, this question failed to differentiate between the nature and level of seriousness of the wrongdoing and the commensurate use of smacking as one discipline tool used. Many opponents to the repeal of s. 59 who use smacking sparingly for certain types of “wrongdoing,” would probably agree with the statement that smacking as a discipline measure to deal with ALL or MOST wrongdoing is the least effective way to guide children to behave well.

Plunket president Kaye Crowther is quoted in the Dominion Post as saying: “We’re not talking about smacking. We’re talking about belting and hitting children with implements. In recent times I am aware of at least two cases where [Section 59] has been used as a defence where the child had been really abused.”

When challenged to identify these “two cases” by our Society secretary David Lane (who phoned her on the day of the report), Ms Crowther cited the recent case of a “Timaru woman” who Sue Bradford alluded to on national television programme (“Eye to Eye”) as having assaulted her son using a “horse whip” (it was actually a riding crop). The woman’s lawyer defended her actions in the Timaru District Court under s. 59 of the Crimes Act. Crowther also cited the recent case of a father who used a 4 by 2 wooden plank to ‘discipline’ a child.

Both cases are inadmissible as evidence in support of Sue Bradford’s s. 59 repeal bill. The Timaru woman was acquitted by the jury and the facts of the case when presented without the negative self-serving media spin, established that she had used “reasonable force” in the context of disciplining her son. She was exonerated by the jury after their deliberations that took only one hour and ten minutes. Mrs Crowther may disagree with the opinion of 12 jurors, but she has no right to tour the country spreading malicious lies that the boy “had been really abused”. Those who stand trial in our country for child abuse and who are subsequently acquitted of charges against them, by a jury, should not be derided as “child abusers” in the media by either a Plunket president, an MP like Ms Bradford, or a Commissioner of Children. Such libellous comments made also denigrate the jurors suggesting they were incompetent and supportive of “child abuse”.

The case involving the use of 2 by 4 timber plank resulted in the father being convicted of assault. His lawyer was entitled to seek to use s. 59 as a defence but the facts convinced the jury that real assault rather than discipline by means of “reasonable force”, had in fact taken place. The use of s. 59 as a line of defence is very rare (see below). In this case its use by the defence lawyer was tantamount to clutching at straws.

S. 59 does not need to be repealed on the basis that the lawyers of a few callous child abusers have tried to appeal to it to defend their clients. Considering the very rare situations where some may seek to use it contrary to its clearly defined intentions never makes good law. Repealing s. 59 in order to supposedly close the claimed ‘escape route’ it offers real child abusers, can be compared to trying to crack open a walnut using a sledgehammer. The effect of any repeal would be to disempower good parents from all modes of discipline using reasonable force (e.g. smacking) as parents would be open to charges of criminal action for all uses of force. This is an abrogation of the rights of parents to discipline their children, for whose actions they are accountable for under law.

The ‘anti-smacking brigade’ is intent on imposing their narrow ideological view of the options of discipline that should be open to parents, upon others who believe smacking has a place in disciplining children.

Sue Bradford claims that her bill removes the legal defence for a parent to physically assault their child and ‘reasons’ that just like adults and pets, children should be protected against assault. However, children are already protected against assault under sections 194(a) and 195 of the Crimes Act 1961. The task of government agencies is to promptly bring real child abusers to justice and punish them appropriately, educate parents and caregivers about how to effectively discipline and nurture their children, by supporting agencies that are doing this well, and avoid interfering in the lives of good parents who choose to apply physical discipline where required. “Yes, there are many positive parenting strategies for disciplining children aside from smacking.

The anti-smacking lobby argues that abuse and violence hide behind the provisions of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and that it constitutes “state sanctioned violence”. The facts do not appear to support this contention. John Hancock, a lawyer who presented a paper for Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa Inc., summarised such cases involving s. 59 in a document titled Parental Corporal Punishment of Children in New Zealand for the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and dated 28 August 2003. In this document he listed only 18 cases in which Section 59 featured spanning the 13 years from 1990 to 2002.

In 10 of those 18 cases in Hancock’s paper the parent was found guilty of abuse; one needed a re-trial; in one the child was removed; and the parent was justified in the remaining six cases, five of which were trials by jury. In other words, when Section 59 cases came up before the courts, the alleged abuser was found to be guilty 56% of the time, which amounted to less than one case per year. So it appears to be a defence rarely used, and abusers don’t appear to be hiding behind it very well.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Finally, we have those calling for the repeal of s. 59, such as the Children’s Commissioner, claiming that s. 59 “breaches the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international commitment that New Zealand ratified in 1993, in allowing discrimination against children, and failing to protect them from all forms of violence.”
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child is the body established under article 43 of the CRC to monitor states’ progress in implementing the convention’s obligations. It has criticised the retention of the right of “corporal punishment” of children in New Zealand legislation under s. 59 (see ref. 2 below). However the NZ legislation does not refer specifically to “corporal punishment” in relation to “domestic discipline”. It only uses the term “reasonable force”. The Convention emphasised the need for the “protection of children from all forms of violence, which includes corporal punishment in the family” and called for “the promotion of non-violent forms of discipline”. It recommended an amendment to existing legislation “to prohibit corporal punishment in the home”. It did not recommend the removal of the statutory defence relating to the use of “reasonable force” by parents in circumstances that did not involve discipline in the home.

The anti-smacking brigade has chosen to misleadingly interpret these CRC treaty to mean that it is opposed to a state’s retention of the rights of parents to use any “reasonable force” in the discipline of their children because it constitutes an abrogation of the rights of children not to be subjected to physical punishment, and thereby is unlawful discriminates against children. That is why there is no mention of “corporal punishment” or “smacking” in Sue Bradford’s bill. If enacted into law as drafted, it would create a legal nonsense by turning all parents who use ANY form of “reasonable force” in carrying out their duties with children, into law breaking criminals (the repeal of s. 59 would expose them to the full force of prosecutions under s. 194(a)).

For the Children’s Commissioner to advance the spurious argument based on “discrimination against children” is a legal nonsense. The law cannot treat all persons in society equally when it comes to domestic discipline or the application of “reasonable force”. Ships’ captains and members of the public seeking to prevent a riot for example are treated differently under the law to ‘ordinary’ citizens when faced with a charge of assault in specific circumstances. They have a statutory defence in law specific to the circumstance and their defined role in physical discipline. Children are not adults. Neither are adults children. Domestic discipline and child rearing duties, by definition must involve some level of “reasonable force” at times (e.g. potty training, changing nappies, putting uncooperative kids to bed). Parents and care-givers are entitled to be protected in law with respect to their use of appropriate and “reasonable discipline”.
The UN Convention’s preamble to its Articles states:

“The States Parties to the present Convention [which came into force 2/9/90],

“Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community…

“Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

“Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",

“Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child…

“Have agreed as follows:”

It is a legal imperative that signatory states afford “the necessary protection and assistance so that [the family] can fully assume its responsibilities within the community”. One of these responsibilities is that of disciplining children by parental and/or caregiver control, correction and punitive action. This of necessity involves some level of “reasonable force” at times. The state assumes these responsibilities by way of “Departments of Correction” or such like that imposes the decisions of the courts issued against lawbreakers. Sovereign states are free to administer appropriate punishment to law-breakers. Governments must acknowledge the reality of the rights of parents to administer loving and appropriate physical discipline and correction to their children and support them in this task. In doing so they must take “due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child”.

Supporters of the repeal of s. 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 such as the Children’s Commissioner argue that s. 59 is in breach of Article 19.

Article 19 of the Convention states

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.

The Crimes Act 1961 seeks to provide protection for children against “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse.” It provides “the necessary support … for those who have the care of children. etc” in part through s. 59 which sends a clear signal to them that only “reasonable force” can be used when caring for children. There is nothing in the Convention that suggests that any or all “reasonable force” used in the physical discipline of children constitutes the type of “physical violence” outlawed by the convention (e.g. the “abuse” of neglect of physical needs, sexual violence and abuse that is physically, psychologically and spiritually harmful etc.).

References:
1. Convention on the Rights of the Child

2. UN Committee recommendations to the NZ Government on Corporal Punishment. [Source Beth Wood, Advocacy Manager, UNICEF NZ (United Nations Children's Fund), Wellington]

Corporal punishment

1. The Committee is deeply concerned that despite a review of legislation, the State party has still not amended section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children. While welcoming the Government’s public education campaign to promote positive, non-violent forms of discipline within the home, the Committee emphasises that the Convention requires the protection of children from all forms of violence, which includes corporal punishment in the family, and which should be accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns on the law and on children’s right to protection.

2. The Committee recommends that the State party:
a) Amend legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in the home;
b) Strengthen public education campaigns and activities aimed at promoting positive, non-violent forms of discipline and respect for children’s right to human dignity and physical integrity, while raising awareness about the negative consequences of corporal punishment.

3. SPCS Press Release 27/7/05. “Dishonesty in Anti-Smacking Brigade”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00311.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

2. UN Committee recommendations to the NZ Government on Corporal Punishment. [Source Beth Wood, Advocacy Manager, UNICEF NZ (United Nations Children's Fund), Wellington]

Corporal punishment

1. The Committee is deeply concerned that despite a review of legislation, the State party has still not amended section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which allows parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children. While welcoming the Government’s public education campaign to promote positive, non-violent forms of discipline within the home, the Committee emphasises that the Convention requires the protection of children from all forms of violence, which includes corporal punishment in the family, and which should be accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns on the law and on children’s right to protection.

2. The Committee recommends that the State party:
a) Amend legislation to prohibit corporal punishment in the home;
b) Strengthen public education campaigns and activities aimed at promoting positive, non-violent forms of discipline and respect for children’s right to human dignity and physical integrity, while raising awareness about the negative consequences of corporal punishment.

3. SPCS Press Release 27/7/05. “Dishonesty in Anti-Smacking Brigade”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00311.htm


Newsletter #51 - Dishonest anti-smackers


Greetings!

Here's a good article showing the dishonest tactics of the anti-smacking brigade.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00311.htm

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #52 -- Letter from Police Commissioner


Dear Friends,


I received this morning a letter from the office of the Commissioner of Police. It was in reply to this letter I sent to him:


26 July 2005

Rob Robinson
Commissioner of Police
PO Box 3017
Wellington


Dear Mr Robinson,

Should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed, what assurances can you give to the parents of New Zealand that they will not be charged with assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act if they subsequently were to smack their child(ren) on the clothed buttocks with an open hand by way of corrective discipline?

Yours faithfully,


Craig S. Smith
National Director




Here is the reply is from Dr A. Jack, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Police and is on Police letterhead. It says:



11 August 2005

Mr Craig Smith
National Director Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North


Dear Mr Smith,

On behalf of the Commissioner I am writing in reply to your letter of 26 July 2005 concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961.

As you will be aware, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 authorises parents to use force by way of correction towards their children, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. If section 59 was repealed in its entirety parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction. Having said this, I am advised that parents would still be authorised to use force to prevent harm to their children. For example, if a parent stopped their child from running out onto a busy road or stopped their child from climbing over a balcony on a building.

However, smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault. I am advised that the Police in investigating such cases, as is the case with all assault investigations, would consider the amount of force used in the circumstances before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. An aggravating factor in any such decision may be the fact that a child is generally more vulnerable than an adult.

I trust this matter clarifies this matter for you.

Yours sincerely,
A Jack (Dr)
NM - Legal Services
Office of the Commissioner



Dr Jack has clearly stated that smacking definitely will become an assault should S.59 be repealed. The only questions then are whether smacking episodes come to the attention of police and whether the police will press charges when they do. That is, whenever we smack our children, we will be technically guilty of assault against a child, and will live in constant fear of being charged. Can anyone afford the cost, the trauma, the damage to one's reputation of a child assault trial, even if you are acquitted? In the meantime CYFs, as they do already, will have removed the child from your family and it is not automatic that CYFs gives the child back.

I submit that this is a very real and very dangerous threat to our freedom to parent our own children according to the dictates of our own consciences. We cannot let it go unchallenged. We do need to lobby against this anyway we can.

Yours faithfully,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter #53 -- Front Page Manawatu Standard


http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/manawatustandard/0,2106,3378333a6003,00.html

Look at this page - Front page Evening Standard - lead article

'Best parents' could be facing assault charges
15 August 2005

By GRANT MILLER

Any change in the law, to ban the smacking of children by parents, will turn some of the country's best parents into criminals, says Palmerston North campaigner Craig Smith.

Mr Smith heads the Family Integrity lobby group, which is opposed to the removal of Section 59 from the Crimes Act.

His comments follow confirmation from the Police Commissioner's office that parents who use "reasonable force" to correct their children's behaviour could face assault charges if Section 59 of the Crimes Act is removed from the statutes book.

In a letter to Family Integrity, the police legal services department says parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force to discipline their children, though they would still be allowed to use force to rescue a child from the roadside.

"Smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault," police said.

Police would consider the amount of force used before deciding whether to prosecute.

The comments conflict with those made by Green MP Sue Bradford, who is sponsoring the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill that is before a parliamentary select committee.

Ms Bradford has said it is not her intention to make parents fear being arrested for smacking their children.

She has argued the bill's aim is to stop the justice system from allowing parents to get away with beating a child with items such as horse whips.

However, Mr Smith said Ms Bradford's bill to repeal Section 59 is "the most destructive anti-parent legislation we've ever seen".
The maximum penalty for assaulting a child under 14 is two years' jail, under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.

United Future deputy leader Judy Turner said it is ludicrous to suggest the bill would make smacking children a criminal offence and yet parents would not be criminalised for it.

"Since when has law been made on the basis that it won't be enforced?"
New Zealand Law Society family law section chairman Simon Maude said Section 59 needs to be replaced by a law that clearly states what parents can do to correct their children.

He said the "reasonable force" defence is vague and does not provide for consistency in the courts.

Surveys by the Justice Ministry and others have shown that 70 to 80 percent of respondents agree parents should be allowed by law to smack a child.

But Ms Bradford has argued that New Zealanders' attitude to child discipline needs to change.

"Frankly, whacking kids is often just lazy parenting. It's time adults recognised the power they have over the most vulnerable members of society and not only showed self-control themselves, but condemned those around them that physically punish their kids."


Newsletter #54 -- Letters from MPs


Here are two good-news letters from MPs. The first here from the (Labour) Minister of Police re-inforces what the Commissioner for Police said earlier: that if Section 59 is repealed, smacking will be assault.

The second is an email from National's East Coast Bays MP who says National will dump the Bill to repeal Section 59 if they get into Government.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



12 August 2005

Mr Craig Smith
Family Integrity

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your letter of 26 July 2005 concerning Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. I note that you have written the same letter to the Commissioner of Police and I have seen a copy of his reply to you.

I trust the reply from the Commissioner of Police clarifies this matter for you.

Yours sincerely,

Hon George Hawkins
Minister of Police




-----Original Message-----
From: Murray McCully [mailto:murray.mccully@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 8:08 a.m.
Subject: RE: Ban Smacking?


Craig

Thanks for your email. I voted against this Bill. The Bill is currently at Select Committee. However, the next government will determine if, and if at what point, the Bill is reinstated. If National is elected, the Bill will not be reinstated.

Regards, Murray


Newsletter #56 - Kiwi on US Radio


Dear Friends,

We'll be on live talk-back radio out of Florida tomorrow, at 2pm or 2:30pm on Thursday 1 September New Zealand time (around 10pm Wednesday 31 Aug Florida time). You can listen to the broadcast on the internet live at:

http://www.TheDavidAllenShow:8000/listen.m3u

The radio station's website is at:

www.TheDavidAllenShow.com and you'll see me listed on the upcoming events on the left of the page.


If you have trouble logging on then go to the right hand side of the web site
and click on Listen Live! or try:

www.1320ThePatriot.com

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #57 - Submission on Bill


Greetings!

The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline)
Amendment Bill, the one to repeal Section 59 and remove from parents the legal
justification for using force -- any force -- with their children, effectively
outlawing pro-active parenting, is before the Justice and Electoral Select
Committee.

They are receiving submissions on this bill until 28 February 2006, less
than 3 months away.

Here is a list of the Committe members. Lobby them respectfully while
preparing your submission. You need to send 2 copies of your submission to:

Clerk of the Committee Justice and Electoral Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON
by the 28th of February 2006.


For tips on how to prepare a submission, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/46u2e
I'll email again with my suggestion for salient points to put into your submission.

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity

Justice and Electoral
Crown legal and drafting services, electoral
matters, human rights and justice


Lynne Pillay (Chairperson), Waitakere, Labour
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 470-6968, Fax (04) 470-6928
Lynne.pillay@parliament.govt.nz
PO Box
20-239, Glen Eden, Auckland
Ph. (09) 818-6871, Fax. (09) 818-8570

Christopher Finlayson (Deputy Chairperson), List National
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 470-6862, Fax (04) 439-6447
Christopher.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz

Hone Harawira, Te Tai Tokerau, Maori
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 470-6955 Hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz


Ann Hartley, Assistant Speaker, List, Labour
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 470-6578, Fax (04) 472-7036
Ann.Hartley@parliament.govt.nz
PO Box 34-053, Birkenhead, Auckland
Ph. (09) 419-9644, Fax (09) 419-9645
annhartley@actrix.co.nz


Russell Fairbrother, List Labour
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 471-9399, Fax (04) 472-8013
Russell@fairbrother.net.nz
PO Box 339, Napier
Ph. (06) 842-0195, Fax (06) 842-0195

Metiria Turei, Co-Leader Maori Party, Te Tai Hauauru, Maori
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 471-9165, Fax (04) 499-7269 Tariana.
Turia@parliament.govt.nz
114 Liverpool St., Whanganui
Ph. (06) 345-4416 Tari.turia@xtra.co.nz
7 Hurley Pl., Palmerston North,
Ph. (06) 356-1915


Nicky Wagner, List, National
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 471-6959
Nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz


Dr Richard Worth, List, National
Freepost Parliament, PO Box 18-888, Wellington
Ph. (04) 471-9893, Fax. (04) 472-4208
Richard.worth@parliament.govt.nz


Closing date for submissions is 28
February 2006.



Newsletter #58 --Submission ideas


Here are a number of ideas anyone can use as points for a submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. These are the MPs who are going to consider Sue Bradford's Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which will not just criminalise smacking, it will make a crime out of ANY use of force with children, including time out or removal of privileges. The Committee have called for submissions from the public and want them in by 28 February 2006.

Submissions do not have to be long and invloved. Short and sharp, making only one point is fine. It is also good to have a conclusion or
recommendation, but not necessary.

Full guidelines on how to make a submission are at:
http://tinyurl.com/46u2e

Please make the effort to send in a submission. I am convinced that this Bill, if passed, will completely strip parents of their authority over their own children. The authority will pass by default to the state.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

We are opposed to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for
Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the following reasons:

1.
Repeal of Section 59 will remove from parents their legal justification in using force with their children. Parents routinely require their children to do certain things and prohibit their children from doing certain things. This is simply a parent's duty and responsibility. If parents cannot back up these requirements and prohibitions with force, then the parental directives are reduced to mere suggestions that they hope their children will follow. Removing the legal use of force by parents from the parenting tool box will of necessity remove most of the parents' authority over their own children in exactly the same way that removal of recourse to force by the Police, the courts, the IRD, city councils, etc., would reduce each of these authorities to making suggestions they could not enforce on anyone.

2.
The majority of parents would still feel a moral obligation to enforce their prohibitions and requirements with their children for reasons of ethnicity, national and familial culture, tradition, religious convictions, philosophical commitments, common sense, etc. However, given the very broad legal definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act (1), repeal of Section 59 will put virtually all acts of force by parents toward their children into the category of assault, turning the vast majority of parents into criminals.

3.
The integrity and cohesion of families becomes an easy
target for subversives who only need to convince children they can complain to any state agent (teachers, social workers, police, etc.), "My parents are using illegal force on me!" if they don't want to do what their parents say, and the authorities will have to investigate. This can be highly destructive and traumatic to families.

4.
Christian parents are obligated to conform their lives to
the Bible. Many such parents believe the directives on child rearing in the
Bible oblige them to use force in chastisement and rigorous discipline with
their children. These religious convictions would become illegal if Section 59 was repealed, and these parents would be forced into civil disobedience toward a lower authority (Acts of Parliament) in order to be obedient toward a higher authority (the God of the Bible).

5.
Repeal of Section 59 with its prohibition on parental use
of force with their own children would conflict with the NZ Bill of Rights Act guarantees of free exercise of religious beliefs and practices. (2)

6.
The Bill's stated intention is to reduce parental
authority in regards to the use of force with their own children to the same level "as everyone else" (3). This not only reduces parental authority to near zero (see point 1 above), it also ignores the special duties and
responsibilities expected of parents but not expected of "everyone else" in
the day-to-day training of their own children into habits of discipline,
self-government and positive character qualities.

7.
This Bill to repeal Section 59 is simply an attempt to replace the Biblical Christian world-view of child rearing enshrined in law with a New Age/Secular Humanist world-view of child rearing. Section 59 reflects the Biblical Christian concept of children as being corrupted by original sin that must be disciplined and as possessing hearts full of foolishness that must be driven out with the rod of correction. The government's job is to allow parents to do these unpleasant tasks as long as they do them responsibly using force that is "reasonable in the circumstances". The New Age/Secular Humanist concept is that children are basically good or basically neutral and so need little if any discipline, just the freedom to be themselves. The government is seen as having the primacy over parents in determining what is best for children.

8.
Members of Parliament are bound to uphold the Biblical Christian world-view of child rearing, not just because the Bible in Romans 13 gives the government the legitimate power to punish evil doers and reward those who do good (wherein it is obvious that both evil and good are defined by the Bible rather than secular humanist definitions), but also because

a. MPs take office only upon making the following Oath of Allegiance: "I, ..........., swear that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

b. Allegiance to the Queen involves the oaths she made at her Coronation, answering as she did in the affirmative questions such as: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?"

c. The prayer opening every session of the NZ
Parliament says, "Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Your
guidance in all things and laying aside all personal and private interest, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy Holy name, the maintainence of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen and the public welfare, peace and tranquility of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

9.
Pro-active parenting will be effectively criminalized
with the repeal of Section 59 and given the wide definition of assault (1).
Since the bill fails to recognise the trainer-trainee, mentor-disciple,
greater-lesser, teacher-student relationship that naturally exists between
parent and child, how could parents ensure the following without the use of
force if the child refused to obey?

a. Being clothed properly for the weather or clothed at all.

b. Eating a balanced diet.

c. Getting adequate rest.

d. Wearing a seat belt in the car and a helmet while cycling.

e. Just getting into the car

f. Accompanying the parent lest the child be left at home alone.

10.
How could parents prohibit the following without the use of force if the child was determined to do it?

a.Drinking, smoking, ingesting or injecting either legal or illegal substances adults can be seen to consume or that the child just wants to try.

b. Watching pornographic and Adult Only rated TV shows and videos.

c. Earning money by prostitution or drug dealing.

d. Wandering off anywhere with anyone at anytime of day or night without telling anyone at home.

e. Keeping company with people likely to be injurious to the child's well-being.

f. Lying, cheating, stealing.

11.
As it is, Section 59 protects responsible parents in their legitimate use of force to correct and train their children, and it allows for the prosecution of parents who are shown to have used force that was neither reasonable in the circumstances nor for the purpose of correction.
If Section 59 is repealed, parents will have no legal authority to use any
force for any reason with their children. Given the very broad legal definition of assault, all parents will be constantly exposed to the charge of criminal assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (4). Assurances by the Bill's promoters that police will exercise "common sense" and not arrest parents every time they are seen to use obvious shows of force are not the least bit comforting as they assume the police will neglect to operate according to the rule and word of the law. (5)

12.
The Bill's very title is nonsense. It says, "Abolition
of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline". No one has ever used Force or the concept of Force as a justification or reason why one would discipline a child. Perhaps the Bill's author, Sue Bradford, meant to say, "Abolition of Force as a Method of Child Discipline." This nonsense right at the beginning of the Bill plus the disastrous side effects it would cause demonstrate that the Bill was conceived and written in haste and carelessly considered.

13.
If parents did not ensure, by force when necessary, that
their children were fed, clothed, washed and rested properly, but only relied on their children going along with parental suggestions in these areas, the parents could be charged with neglect under Section 152 of the Crimes Act 1961 (6).

14.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act is titled, "Domestic
Discipline". Repeal of Section 59 would remove "Domestic Discipline" from the law. All parents would be legally disallowed, disempowered, unauthorised from employing discipline because it of necessity involves the use of force to ensure children follow a certain line of behaviour or refrain from a certain line of behaviour.

15.
All parents need to use force in its various forms (obedience to verbal command, physical movement, smacking, intimidation, warning of negative consequences, appeal to family tradition or conscience or culture or religious commitment, withholding privileges, physically restraining, imposing restrictions, time-out, confinement to room, etc.), to bend the reluctant or disobedient child's will to that of the parents as an essential and inescapable part of fulfilling their parenting esponsibilities. Removal of Section 59 would effectively remove from parents their legal authority to parent effectively, authoritatively and pro-actively because they would no longer be legally authorised to use force (5).

16.
Because there are already laws on the books against
committing violence, injury or abuse against children, the Bill is an attempt to impose a minority philosophical view (that smacking is essentially the same as violence and abuse) on the majority of New Zealanders who do not believe this (7).



Conclusion:
We recommend that this Bill be voted down and not allowed to proceed.
Instead maintain Section 59 of the Crimes Act as it stands, for it is a
brilliant piece of legislation. It protects responsible parents in their
legitimate use of force to correct and train their children, and it allows
proper authorities to pursue cass wherein the use of force is not reasonable in the circumstances nor used for the purpose of correction.

Notes:
1. Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961: "Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose." Please note that physical contact is not needed to commit assault.

2. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990, Section 15: "Manifestation of religion and belief - Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private." Section 20: "Rights of minorities - A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the religion, or to use the language, of that minority."

3.From the Bill's Explanatory Note: "The effect of this amendment
is that the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians
will be removed. They will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned."

4. Crimes Act 1961, Section 194a: "Every one is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who assaults any child under the age of 14 years."

5. Letter from Craig Smith, National Director of Family Integrity,
Palmerston North, 26 July 2005, to Commissioner of Police, Rob Robinson,
Wellington: "Dear Mr Robinson, Should Section 59 of the Crimes Act be
repealed, what assurances can you give to the parents of New Zealand that they will not be charged with assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act if they subsequently were to smack their child(ren) on the clothed buttocks with an open hand by way of corrective discipline?" Reply from Dr A. Jack, Legal Services, Police Commissioner's Office, 11 August 2005: "Dear Mr Smith, If Section 59 was repealed in its entirety, parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction....However, smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault."

6. Section 152: Duty of parent or guardian to provide
necessaries-(1) Every one who as a parent or person in place of a parent is
under a legal duty to provide necessaries for any child under the age of 16
years, being a child in his actual custody, is criminally responsible for
omitting without lawful excuse to do so, whether the child is helpless or not, if the death of the child is caused, or if his life is endangered or his health permanently injured, by such omission. (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, without lawful excuse, neglects the duty specified in this section so that the life of the child is endangered or his health permanently injured by such neglect.

7. A New Zealand Ministry of Justice survey conducted by the
National Research Bureau in 2001 showed "that 80% of the public agreed that a person parenting a child should be allowed by law to smack the child with an open hand if they are naughty." Full report at:
www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2001/children/ex-summary.html.




Newsletter 59 -- Submission to Crimes Amendment Bill


I've attached a sumbission I've already written on this "anti-smacking bill". You are free to borrow whatever you find useful for your own submission.

Briefly:

The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, the one to repeal Section 59 and remove from parents the legal justification for using force -- any force -- with their children, effectively outlawing pro-active parenting, is before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

They are receiving submissions on this bill until 28 February 2006, about 3 months away.

Here is a list of the Committe members. Lobby them respectfully while preparing your submission. You need to send 20 copies of your submission to:

Clerk of the Committee
Justice and Electoral Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

by the 28th of February 2006.


For tips on how to prepare a submission, visit:

http://tinyurl.com/46u2e

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Submission on the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill


I. Violence and abuse against children are already illegal.

A. Repeal of S. 59 is therefore redundant. There are certainly other effects that will follow repeal, and it may be that these are the real reasons why some people support repeal.

B. It appears to be a form of cultural imperialism with a minority attempting to use the power of the state to enforce its particular philosophical hegemony over the majority of New Zealanders.

C. Lawyer and MP Stephen Franks said there is no evidence in the case for repeal: “As a lawyer I am also concerned about the absence of any evidence in the case for repeal of section 59, that it will actually penetrate the consciousness of the target groups. I simply don’t believe the claims that child abuse is spread evenly through society. That is not what experienced police, judges and social workers say. It is not the case for other forms of crime. While clearly there will be violence and harsh discipline in all corners, the worst forms are disproportionately concentrated in a few thousand so-called families. And that is where the law should be directed: where the greatest good can be done.” (From his address to a Barnardos Forum in Wellington, 15 October 2001.)



II. Section 59 itself
Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is bracketed with Section 60 in their own little sub category titled: “Powers of Discipline”. Here they are together:

59. Domestic discipline-
[(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.]

(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
[(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.]



60. Discipline on ship or aircraft-
(1) The master or officer in command of a ship on a voyage or the pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight is justified in using and ordering the use of force for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline on board his ship or aircraft if he believes on reasonable grounds that the use of force is necessary, and if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) Every one acting in good faith is justified in using force in obedience to any order given by the master or officer or pilot in command for the purpose aforesaid, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

(3) The reasonableness of the grounds of which the use of force was believed to be necessary, and the reasonableness of the force used, are questions of fact.

A. The law as it stands recognises parents, pilots and ship captains as having legitimate authority to use limited force in order to fulfil their responsibilities to their charges, be they children or passengers.

B. Repeal of S. 59 will remove this authority from parents, but not from pilots or captains or “Everyone acting in good faith” on a ship or aircraft.

C. Section 59 clearly does not condone violence or abuse against children. It only condones force that is hedged about by two considerations: that the force is reasonable in the circumstances and that it is further used by way of correction.

D. This is a brilliant piece of legislation. It allows parents to go about their parenting tasks wherein they have to correct and discipline and train and do a myriad of tasks for their children and to their children for the children’s good, without fear of being charged with assault, since it is common for children to object and struggle against the parents’ wishes and requests and requirements.

E. If parents did not ensure, by force when necessary, that their children were fed, clothed, washed and rested properly, but only relied on their children going along with parental suggestions in these areas, the parents could be charged with neglect under Sections 152.

F. S. 59 mostly acts as a protection for parents as they go about their parenting tasks, tasks which are unique in human relationships, so that they are not constantly exposed to charges of criminal assault against their children. This is an issue because of the broadness of the Crimes Act definition of Assault.

G. Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines “assault” very broadly: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.” Physical contact is not needed to commit assault: all that is needed is a gesture that is subjectively interpreted by another person to mean the gesturing person is about to use force on the other person.

H. Parents do a lot more than gesture toward their children or make suggestions: they issue orders and make requirements of their children as part of their unique task to train a sense of orderliness, responsibility, propriety, work ethic, duty, etc., into their children. Paid baby sitters and/or teachers and/or other professional helpers are not expected to be responsible for this training, whereas parents are. Consequently parents will routinely follow up their verbal requests, commands and requirements with physical guidance, restraint, manoeuvrings, manipulations, pinches, taps or smacks as required.

I. Repeal of S. 59 would remove “Domestic Discipline” from the law. All parents would be legally disallowed, disempowered, unauthorised from employing discipline as it of necessity involves the use of force to ensure children follow a certain line of behaviour or refrain from a certain line of behaviour. All parents need to use force in its various forms (smacking being only one of them) as an essential and inescapable part of fulfilling their parenting responsibilities.

J. Removing this authority would remove parents’ ability to parent effectively in the same way that removing authority to use force from pilots would not legally allow them to stop passengers from hijacking the plane, lighting fires on board or opening doors at 30,000 feet. Police, the IRD and city councils would all likewise be reduced to making suggestions that people could entirely ignore if these entities could not use force to back up their demands. Parents must legally have the authority to use force, for society could not function where the children entirely ignored their parents.

K. Section 59 as worded will flex with the understandings and attitudes prevalent in the society of the day, as represented by the jury.

III. Bradford’s Bill
It is very short and has only five parts: title, commencement date, statement of purpose, repeal notice and consequential amendments. The largest part is the Explanatory Note which says:

“The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence and harm under the pretence of domestic discipline, being inflicted on children. Presently, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 acts as a justification, excuse or defence for parents and guardians using force against their children where they are doing so for the purposes of correction and the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. The Bill will repeal that provision. The effect of this amendment is that the statutory protection for use of force by parents and guardians will be removed. They will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act, a comparatively new provision in the criminal law, and the repeal of section 59 ought not revive any old common law justification, excuse or defence that the provision may have codified.”

A. The first sentence is misleading, for this Bill will criminalize all force, not just that associated with violence and harm.

B. This Note makes it clear that the effect of repeal is to remove protection from parents so that they will be reduced to “the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned.” This denies and ignores the unique relationship of responsibility for training and discipline parents are expected to have with their children.

C. Since parenting requires force of many kinds (obedience to verbal command, physical movement, smacking, intimidation, warning of negative consequences, appeal to family tradition or conscience), effective parenting will be outlawed in that parents could legally force their children to do only what “everyone else” could legally force children to do: virtually nothing.

D. The Note goes out of its way to warn parents that using force could constitute child assault under Section 194(a). It is clear that far more than unreasonable force that causes violence and harm will be caught up in this prohibition: all the other acts of parenting which require force technically will also become acts of assault.

E. The reference to excluding any common law justification demonstrates that this Bill is meant to represent a break with our historical precedents, our connection with centuries of British common law and other understandings in law and an embarkation into a brave new world.

IV. Effects of Repeal -- There is the law of unintended consequences. It is a weakness of those in places of power that they tend to ignore this law because they enjoy telling others what to do and enforcing their theories with the coercive power of the state.

A. Refer to attached letters from Commissioner of Police and Minister of Police: Dr A. Jack says clearly that the ancient and nearly universal parental practice of smacking will definitely become a form of assault.

B. Dr Jack further says: “If section 59 was repealed in its entirety parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction.” Parents’ authority over their children will be severely compromised: if they cannot even use “reasonable force”, then they clearly cannot legally use any force at all. All parents will have their hands tied.

C. Even the favoured alternative method of discipline - time out - cannot be enforced without the use of force. It will also be criminalized, meaning virtually every parent in the country will be constantly exposed to being charged with criminal assault, unless we assume either that police will not enforce the law or that parents will suddenly and completely cease disciplining their children.

D. Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act provides for a maximum two years in jail for assault upon a child under 14. Parents who today perform parenting acts that are considered by the vast majority, as being well within “reasonable force” will face prison terms after repeal since they will have no legal defence whatsoever. This is a very serious form of child abuse: to threaten and stress with fear of prosecution and to actually imprison parents for no good reason.

E. Many parents have strong convictions about the need to use smacking in certain circumstances, convictions borne of religious faith, family traditions, cultural practices and the like. These people will suddenly have their beliefs and convictions criminalized.

F. Properly conducted surveys, such as the one commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in 2001 and performed by the National Research Bureau, show that 80% of New Zealanders oppose a ban on smacking. (See www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2001/children/ex-summary.html.)

G. Parents technically commit assault, as defined in Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961 (see point II G above), against their children all the time: i.e., whenever they impose their will upon the child.

H. Parents will be guilty of committing technical assault against their children nearly every moment of every day as they brush the child’s hair, change its clothes, wipe its bottom, make it wash its hands and eat its veggies and go to bed at a certain time, confine it to its room, etc., all of which would be acts of assault if committed on non-consenting adults.

I. Repealing S.59 will make parenting a fearful and impossible task as the parents constantly wonder when they will be charged with assault. Effective parenting will effectively be outlawed.

J. Any report that a parent had smacked a child would have to be investigated, irrespective of whether the child had suffered any harm or not. This means children from loving homes could be placed on the child protection register and forced to testify against their parents in court. The Police Commissioner has already stated that if the defence of reasonable force were to be abolished, smacking would be considered as an assault. If the parent’s employment involved work with children as a childminder, youth worker or member of school staff, the charge of child assault would almost certainly lead to the parent losing his or her job.

K. There would be a very real danger that genuinely abused children would not receive the help they need because the authorities would be spending time with families where the children were not suffering significant harm. The misappropriation of child protection resources would expose abused children to increased risk of harm.

L. If smacking were to be outlawed, some parents may resort to shouting at their children, verbally abusing them, shutting them in their room, refusing to speak to them or in other ways withdrawing tokens of their love and affection. Compared with other responses - which would remain legal - a moderate and controlled smack in the context of a warm and positive parent-child relationship is a much more kind and merciful way of dealing with a child’s misbehaviour. A well-timed smack can nip the problem in the bud, and addresses the issue there and then so that it is over and done with and family life can move on. Many other responses can be more emotionally and psychologically damaging.

M. There is also the very real danger that parents would refrain from smacking while they are in control only to lash out when they reach the end of their tether. It is at that point that serious harm can be done.

N. A simple repeal will vastly complicate our law of assault, for assault is easily proved (just look at the legal definition under point II G). Judges will have to wrestle with new distinctions, trying to avoid being forced to convict people they see as morally innocent. Many law-abiding citizens will consider this law change an ass and become contemptuous of the law. When this happens, the law loses credibility in the eyes of everyone. It causes more indecision for those who must enforce it, and more doubt about its value, and worse still, there will be more pressure on the courts to find cunning or discreditable arguments to avoid enforcing the clear words of the law.

O. MP Sue Bradford and Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro routinely say that the Police will not prosecute for “light smacks”, even though they will clearly be acts of assault. These people are advocating that the Police fail to uphold and enforce the law of the land.

P. Some of the institutions supporting Repeal, Barnardos, Plunket, Children’s Commissioner and Families Commissioner, should enjoy universal support as champions of the victims and the underdogs; but as they support such harmful unintended consequences, they are being viewed by growing numbers with suspicion, perhaps as though they are in league with a grasping and centralising nanny state that believes the children belong to it.

Q. These institutions are attacking the child rearing practices held by many families, across many religions and cultures and traditions, some of the deepest and most important cultural practices we have. They are starting to pay the price in increasing suspicion against them.



V. Refuting the Repeal Lobby’s Arguments: UNCROC - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many have said that NZ, as a signatory to UNCROC, is required by Article 19 to repeal Section 59 or to ban smacking in the home. Article 19 requires no such thing.

A. UNCROC Article 19 says: “States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.” This is targeting “violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation” which is obviously not at all the same as either reasonable force used by way of correction (section 59) or smacking, unless one holds the unusual opinion that reasonable force used by way of correction and traditional smacking as it is known in New Zealand are by definition the same as “violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation”. Bradford’s Bill may simply be an attempt to foist her fringe/minority definition of smacking onto everyone else in New Zealand even though the vast majority do not agree (see point IV D above).

B. Those referring to UNCROC as justification for repealing S.59 or criminalizing/banning smacking appear hypocritical in that they ignore far more numerous and pointed references in UNCROC to the need to protect the unborn child, not from potential “violence, injury or abuse” but from certain and unjustifiable death.

a. From UNCROC’s Preamble: Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth’’

b. UNCROC Article 1: For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

c. UNCROC Article 2(1): States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

d. UNCROC Article 6(1): States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life.
e. UNCROC Article 6(2): States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

f. UNCROC Article 24(1 & 2)(a) & (d): States Parties recognise the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers.

VI. Refuting the Repeal Lobby’s Arguments: Hiding Abuse Behind S. 59. It is constantly asserted that abusive parents hide behind the provisions of S. 59 and that it is even used by the courts to let clear cases of abuse get off free.

A. S. 59 cannot be used to justify violence toward children. It cannot even be used to justify unreasonable force, but only “reasonable force used by way of correction”. That’s why it was placed in the Crimes Act in the first place: to nail the abusive and violent while protecting parents in their legitimate parenting activities.

B. When cases of possible abuse come before the courts or are investigated by CYFs, how often is a defence of S. 59 even attempted? “Each year Child, Youth and Family investigates more than 25,000 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect.” ( on 19 August 2005). How many times a year, out of these 25,000, is Section 59 brought up?

C. Lawyer John Hancock of Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa Inc., summarised such cases in a document titled “Parental Corporal Punishment of Children in New Zealand” for the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and dated 28 August 2003. In this document he listed only 18 cases in which Section 59 featured spanning the 13 years from 1990 to 2002. That is a mere 1.4 cases a year out of the 1,415 reported cases of child abuse/assault Statistics NZ recorded for 2004! That is, S. 59 is used as a defence in about 0.1% of the cases annually! Read the full report at:
http://www.acya.org.nz/Portals/0/S59_report_UNCROC_28Aug2003.rtf

VII. Refuting the Repeal Lobby’s Arguments: Research Demonstrates Only Negative Behavioural Outcomes from Smacking

A. Researchers fall into two camps.

a. Those who can find no demonstrable causal connection between normal smacking and negative behaviours include: Dr Diana Baumrind of U of California at Berkeley; Dr Robert Larzelere of U of Nebraska; Drs Rex Ahdar & James Allan of U of Otago.

b. Those who claim a demonstrable link include: Dr Murray Strauss, U of New Hampshire; Dr Joan Durrant, U of Manitoba; Dr Anne Smith of U of Otago.

B. They all acknowledge the near impossibility of establishing a causal link between specific events in one part of a person’s life (i.e., physical discipline as a child) among all the other events in that person’s life and events in later life (i.e., negative social behaviours).

C. According to Derek Rogusky, director of research for Focus on the Family Canada, many studies lump abuse and disciplinary spanking together. “However, the studies done that differentiate between abuse and spanking show kids who are occasionally spanked, in a loving and caring environment with other forms of discipline also used, are very well adjusted.” (See )

D. Dr Larzelere said in his paper “Child Abuse in Sweden”, “Durrant and I used the identical data source to arrive at nearly opposite conclusions.” Quoting statistics has limited or no value in determining the harm or benefits of repealing Section 59. (See http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/ .)

VIII. Refuting the Repeal Lobby’s Arguments: Extend Common Human Rights to Children the Same as to Fellow Adults

A. This is a ridiculous argument as it pre-supposes a parent’s relationship to his own child is not essentially any different from his relationship to other adults outside the family.

B. One doesn’t smack other adults for the same reason one doesn’t try to change their clothes or bathe or feed them. When a person has reached adulthood he is assumed to have matured to a place of independence and is self-governing.

C. Children by definition have not reached maturity nor are they independent or self-governing. They are dependent upon their parents who are responsible to train and discipline the children toward this happy state of independence.

D. There are those cases wherein one would change and feed and bathe another adult: when that adult is in a degenerating condition (not maturing) due to illness and/or old age; plus the one caring for the adult has a special responsibility and authority to do so. We find this authority in nurses, rest home employees and parents.

IX. Refuting the Repeal Lobby’s Arguments: We Need to Send a Signal to Society that Violence Will Not Be Tolerated

A. If this society or this Government were serious about signals, they could sack the Abortion Supervisory Committee and slam the Certifying Consultants into jail for illegally allowing abortions on demand, which was surely not the intention of the CSA Act, yet children are systematically killed at the rate of 50 per day, 18,500 last year.

B. Charge school bullies with assault.
C. Fire the top two film censors in this country for not doing their job properly, polluting this country with possibly the vilest and most degrading, gory and sexualised violence ever recorded.

D. Tell the TV and video-games people to take their gratuitously violent and gory shows somewhere else. The truly harmful effects of TV and video violence are well known and well documented (the school shootings at Jonesboro, Arkansas; Paducah, Kentucky; Pearl, Mississippi; Stamps, Arkansas; Conyers, Georgia; and of course, Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado; see Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano). 1

X. The Most Accurate Predictor of Child Abuse Is “Family” or Household Structure.

A. Analysis of British data by the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., shows that compared with the intact married family, serious child abuse is: six times higher in the step-family; 14 times higher in families with single mothers (divorced and single mothers combined); 20 times higher in families with single fathers (predominantly divorced fathers); 20 times higher with de facto biological parents; and 22 times higher where the mother cohabits with a boyfriend. (See . Also Greg Fleming, Managing Director of the Maxim Institute, New Zealand Herald, 25 June 2002, ‘Parents need secure option before giving up smacking.’)

XI. Conclusion

A. Ministry of Social Development should direct the Police and CYFs to start keeping statistics on the household structure of cases of child abuse.

B. Drop the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill as unworkable and as ushering in too many very damaging unintended consequences. Leave Section 59 intact just as it is.

Note:
1. Family Fact of the Week: Video Violence
"Based on an examination of the research that shows the negative influences of violence in interactive media on youth, the American Psychological Association (APA) today adopted a resolution recommending that all violence be reduced in video games and interactive media marketed to children and youth. Additionally, the APA also encourages parents, educators and health care providers to help youth make more informed choices about which games to play. ...Research on media violence also revealed, that perpetrators go unpunished 73 percent of the time in all violent scenes. 'Showing violent acts without consequences teach youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Whereas, seeing pain and suffering as a consequence can inhibit aggressive behavior', says psychologist Elizabeth Carll, PhD, co-chair of the Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media."
(Source: "APA Calls for Reduction of Violence in Interactive Media used by Children and Adolescents," American Psychological Association Press Release, August 17, 2005; )
Family Quote of the Week: Game Aggression
"[V]ideo games differ from more passive mediums, such as comic books, in one important way. 'They are interactive, [Kimberly Thompson] said. 'When you play a video game you get feedback, you're rewarded.' In fact, her investigation into a wide range of popular, teen-rated games found that 'players were being rewarded for committing acts of violence. So basically, violence becomes just a part of how you move on in the game.' Parents who are concerned that their child is spending too much time staring into a video game screen do have options, [Kevin] Kieffer said. 'Parents need to go out of their way to involve youth in other activities,' said Kieffer, who is also a counseling psychologist. Too often, he said, parents use gaming as a way of keeping kids occupied. 'It's easy to say "I'm going to plug you into your Gameboy or video game player -- go have a good time for a couple of hours so I can do what I need to do."' ...'The real issue is to set up a relationship with your children, a relationship where you can fully discuss these issues,' Kieffer said. 'It all boils down to communication, which a lot of families lack these days.' 'We do know that when it comes to kids and games, learning happens,' Thompson said. 'So you really have to ask, just what is it they are learning?'"
(Source: E.J. Mundell, "Violent Video Games Spur Aggression in Kids," HealthDay, August 19, 2005; )
Family Research Abstract of the Week: Vulnerable to Violence
Teens (especially boys) who have been exposed to violence-either as a victim or as a witness-are much more likely to commit acts of violence themselves than are peers not so exposed. Researchers investigating the way exposure to violence pushes young adolescents toward violent acts do not, however, see this pathological pattern equally prevalent in all social settings: this pattern of violence begetting violence typically shows up among teens denied the stabilizing influence of an intact parental marriage. In a study conducted for the National Institute of Justice, criminologists Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz recently parsed data collected in 1995 as part of the National Survey of Adolescents, looking particularly for circumstances linking youthful exposure to violence to subsequent violent juvenile crime. Much as they had expected, the researchers find that "exposure to violence has serious consequences for violent offending," with "experiences of violence in the juveniles' lives all serv[ing] as substantial risk factors for violent offending." However, despite theoretical reasons for supposing that low family income and urban residence would foster adolescent violence and that high family income and rural residence would inhibit such violence, in their initial analysis of their data the researchers find that "neither family income nor where the juvenile lives are significant risk factors." In contrast, their analysis reveals a strong influence of family structure: "Always having lived with both biological parents appears to be a protection against violent offending (O[dds] R[atio] .463) [ p < 0.001]." In a second analysis that takes into account both increasing levels of exposure to violence and differences in types of victimization, family income still fails to predict violent teen offenses, but place of residence does emerge as a predictor, with "juveniles living in small towns and rural communities ... significantly less likely to engage in violent offenses" than urban peers. And the second analysis once again confirms the deterrent effect of "always having lived with both biological parents" (Odds Ratio of .578; p < 0.001). The researchers conjecture that parental marital status may reduce the likelihood of teens' violent offending in a couple ways. First, an intact parental marriage "greatly influence[s] the economic stability of the family with two parents generally being able to provide greater economic resources." Second, an intact parental marriage "increase[s] the family networks" in ways that "increas[e] the likelihood of spending time with family members." Though both conjectures are plausible, readers may recall that neither of the researchers' statistical models establishes a linkage between household income and teen offending and may therefore regard the second conjecture as more compelling than the first. Teens who spend leisure with aunts, uncles, and cousins are much less likely to pick up a switchblade than peers spending their spare time on the streets with strangers.
(Source: Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz, "Violent Lives: A Lifestyle Model Linking Exposure to Violence to Juvenile Violent Offending," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42 [2005]: 3-26)



Equipping parents to do battle to protect the integrity of their family






Newsletter #60 -- The Core issue


Dear Friends,

As I've gone over this Bill of Sue Bradford's to ban smacking and repeal
Section 59 and as I've gone over Section 59 again and again, it seems
clear that the real debate is no longer over smacking: it is over
parental authority.

Repeal of Section 59 will remove from law the section that is titled
"Domestic Discipline" and will remove any legal justification for
parents to use ANY force with their children for ANY reason.

If you cannot use force, you cannot back up your authority.

Every parent has some non-negotiable requirements of their children as
well as some non-negotiable prohibitions. Call it what you like, but at
the end of the day, this is the parent forcing his/her will upon the
child, regardless of what the child thinks or feels.

If you cannot use force with your children, it means you effectively no
longer have any authority over them. If police, IRD, city councils,
etc., could not use force to back up their demands on us, they could
only issue "suggestions" which we could obey or ignore...and we could
totally ignore them if they could not use force (penalties, sanctions,
etc.) So they would have no real authority because they could not back
it up with force.

This is what Bradford's Bill will do: remove parental recourse to force
and thereby destroy all real parental authority over their own children.
This is far worse than just banning smacking.

In addition, this is Bradford forcing her religious world view regarding
pedagogy (the nature of children) onto the entire population and
removing from law the Christian pedagogy enshrined in Section 59.
Section 59 allows pacifist and new age and Christian parenting styles to
co-exist in society: Bradfords Bill will criminalise Christian
parenting, demonstrating how intolerant her world view is toward
Christian concepts of children and child-rearing.

Section 59 is already intolerant of violence, injury and abuse: it only
justifies force that is "by way of correction" and "reasonable in the
circumstances". Bradford and co. have an extreme religious world view
that somehow equates reasonable corrective force used by parents on the
one hand with violence, injury and abuse abhorred by all on the other
hand. Repeal of Secion 59 will establish in our law code their extreme
world view against parents exercising their authority over their own
children.

This Bill will effectively transfer most authority over children and all
use of force towards children from their parents to the state.

This Bill is the most dangerous and damaging and worst piece of proposed
legislation in NZ's history. It must be stopped.

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter # 63 - 67 - Sample Submissions


Dear Friends,

You will find a submission toolkit at http://section59.org

This is a brilliant help to making a submission.


Here are samples of very short submissions one could use to protest against the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill which seeks to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This Bill is supposedly to stop child abuse (which no legislation can do), and incidentally to ban smacking....but it will effectively destroy parental authority.


Send 2 copies of your submission addressed to:

Clerk of the Committee
Justice and Electoral Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

to arrive by 28 February 2006. Further guidelines on submission writing at: http://tinyurl.com/46u2e.

Please get onto this straight away!


Make sure you give your full name and contact details and personally sign the submissions.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Sample Submission 1

To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I am opposed to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the following reason:

If Section 59 is repealed it will remove from parents their legal justification in using force with their children. Parents routinely require their children to do certain things which the latter do not want to do, and they prohibit their children from doing certain things which they do want to do. This is simply a parent’s duty and responsibility. If parents cannot back up these requirements and prohibitions with force, then the parental directives are reduced to mere suggestions that they hope their children will follow. Removing the legal use of force by parents from the parenting tool box will of necessity remove most of the parents’ authority over their own children in exactly the same way that removal of recourse to force by the Police, the courts, the IRD, city councils, etc., would reduce each of these authorities to making suggestions they could not enforce on anyone.

The bottom line is that the maintenance of peace and order in the home will be rendered impossible. Is this really what the government wishes to see happen - anarchy in the home?

Conclusion: Please leave the law just as it is in this regard.



Sample Submission 2


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

Please reject the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. My reason is as follows -

Most parents would still feel a moral obligation to enforce their prohibitions and requirements with their children for reasons of ethnicity, national and familial culture, tradition, religious convictions, philosophical commitments, common sense, etc. However, given the very broad legal definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act (1), repeal of Section 59 will put virtually all acts of force by parents toward their children into the category of assault, turning the vast majority of parents into criminals.

The police will be kept so busy dealing with complaints or charges against normal loving parents, that many real child abusers will end up getting away with their crimes. This law change will not benefit the children of this land at all. It will actually end up inadvertently favouring the real criminals.

In conclusion, I would submit to you that this law should be left as it is.


Sample Submission 3


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I would like to submit my objection to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for this reason:

The integrity and cohesion of families will become easy targets for subversives who only need to convince children they can complain to any state agent (teachers, social workers, police, etc.), “My parents are using illegal force on me!” if they don’t want to do what their parents say, and the authorities will have to investigate. This can be highly destructive and traumatic to families.

It would only take one disaffected youth under the influence of unwise counsel, and in a rash moment, to rip a family apart in this way.

Please do not recommend this Bill to Parliament.


Sample Submission 4


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I am opposed to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill because:

Christian parents are obligated to conform their lives to the Bible. Many such parents believe the directives on child rearing in the Bible oblige them to use force in loving chastisement and firm discipline with their children. Acting out of these religious convictions would become illegal if Section 59 were repealed, and these parents would be forced into civil disobedience toward a lower authority (Acts of Parliament) in order to be obedient toward the highest authority (the God of the Bible).

Please do not force myself and all Christian parents into disobeying the government. You will make criminals of us.

Furthermore, and in line with the above reality, repeal of Section 59 with its prohibition on parental use of force with their own children would conflict with the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees the freedom of exercise of religious beliefs and practices in this country.
[ See New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990, Section 15: “Manifestation of religion and belief - Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.” Section 20: “Rights of minorities - A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the religion, or to use the language, of that minority.”]

Therefore, I would urge the committee to reject this Bill, and leave Section 59 right where it is.


Sample Submission 5


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I would hereby urge you to oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the following reasons:


1. This Bill to repeal Section 59 is simply an attempt to replace the Biblical Christian world-view of child rearing enshrined in law with a New Age/Secular Humanist world-view of child rearing. Section 59 reflects the Biblical Christian concept of children as being corrupted by original sin that must be disciplined, and as possessing hearts full of foolishness that must be driven out with the rod of correction. The government’s responsibility is to allow parents to do these unpleasant tasks, as long as they do them responsibly using force that is “reasonable in the circumstances”. The New Age/Secular Humanist concept is that children are basically good or basically neutral and so need little, if any, discipline, just the freedom to be themselves. The government is seen as having the primacy over parents in determining what is best for children, as if the children belong to the state and not to the parents.

2.Members of Parliament are bound to uphold the Biblical Christian world-view of child rearing, not just because the Bible in Romans 13 gives the government the legitimate power to punish evil doers and reward those who do good (wherein it is obvious that both evil and good are defined by the Bible rather than secular humanist definitions), but also because

a.MPs take office only upon making the following Oath of Allegiance: “I, ..........., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
b.Allegiance to the Queen involves the oaths she made at her Coronation, answering as she did in the affirmative questions such as: “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
c.The prayer opening every session of the NZ Parliament says, “Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Your guidance in all things and laying aside all personal and private interest, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy Holy name, the maintainence of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen and the public welfare, peace and tranquility of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

For the government to maintain its integrity it must reject this Bill, and uphold Section 59 as that which protects parents in the faithful exercise of their God-given right and responsibility.


Sample Submission 6

To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I am against the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for these reasons:

Pro-active parenting will be effectively criminalized with the repeal of Section 59 and given the wide definition of assault.
[Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.” Please note that physical contact is not needed to commit assault.]

Parents naturally bear a teacher-student, trainer-trainee, mentor-disciple, greater-lesser relationship to their children. The bill fails to recognise this basic self-evident reality, and, because it does, a very vital question the committee needs to grapple with is this:

How can parents ensure the following common daily requirements for their child without the use of some force should he/she refuse to co-operate?
a. Being clothed properly for the weather or clothed at all.
b. Eating a balanced diet.
c. Getting adequate rest.
d. Wearing a seat belt in the car and a helmet while cycling.
e. Just getting into the car
f. Accompanying the parent lest the child be left at home alone.

Another vital question to answer is this:

How could parents prohibit the following without the use of force if the child were determined to do it?
a. Drinking, smoking, ingesting or injecting either legal or illegal substances adults can be seen to consume or that the child just wants to try.
b. Watching pornographic and Adult Only rated TV shows and videos.
c. Earning money by prostitution or drug dealing.
d. Wandering off anywhere with anyone at anytime of day or night without telling anyone at home.
e. Keeping company with people likely to be injurious to the child’s well-being.
f. Lying, cheating, stealing.
g. Vandalising family property.

If Section 59 is removed, parents will have no control over such things. Who then will ensure that they happen? Please do not support this Bill as a Committee, but insist that the Crimes Act not be amended.


Sample Submission 7


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I urge the Committee to oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill because:

As it stands, Section 59 protects responsible parents in their legitimate use of force to correct and train their children, and it allows for the prosecution of parents who are shown to have used force that was neither reasonable in the circumstances nor for the purpose of correction. If Section 59 is repealed, parents will have no legal authority to use any force for any reason with their children. Given the very broad legal definition of assault, all parents will be constantly exposed to the charge of criminal assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act {Crimes Act 1961, Section 194a: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who assaults any child under the age of 14 years.”}. There is already a fair amount of stress involved with responsible parenting, but this eventuality would be the source of crippling stress to many a good parent, as it would present a very real threat to the security of the average New Zealand family.

Assurances by the Bill’s promoters that police will exercise “common sense” and not arrest parents every time they are seen to use obvious shows of force are not the least bit comforting as they assume the police will neglect to operate according to the rule and word of the law, thereby making the whole matter an extremely arbitrary affair.


Please do not put New Zealand’s majority of responsible parents into such a dangerous and difficult position. Reject this Bill.


Sample Submission 8


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill is a bad idea. Its very title is nonsense. It says, “Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline”. No one has ever used Force or the concept of Force as a justification or reason why one would discipline a child. Perhaps the Bill’s author, Sue Bradford, meant to say, “Abolition of Force as a Method of Child Discipline.”

Even were that to have been the intention, without force there can be no such thing as “child discipline”, for the whole idea of discipline is that one is forced into a certain pattern of thinking and/or behaviour that one wouldn’t naturally adopt.

This nonsense right at the beginning of the Bill, plus the disastrous side effects it would cause in society as a whole, let alone in the family particularly, demonstrate that the Bill was conceived and written in haste and carelessly considered.

It should not, therefore, be allowed to proceed any further as a piece of legislation. To go further with it would be irresponsible.


Sample Submission 9


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

Here following are two reasons why I believe the Committee should oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill:

1. All parents need to use force in its various forms (obedience to verbal command, physical movement, smacking, intimidation, warning of negative consequences, appeal to family tradition or conscience or culture or religious commitment, withholding privileges, physically restraining, imposing restrictions, time-out, confinement to room, etc.), to bend the reluctant or disobedient child’s will to that of the parents as an essential and inescapable part of fulfilling their parenting responsibilities. Removal of Section 59 would effectively remove from parents their legal authority to parent effectively, authoritatively and pro-actively because they would no longer be legally authorised to use force (5).

Parents would be reduced to using such poor tools as pleading with the child, bribery, emotional manipulation (eg. blackmail), all of which send the wrong message to the child, ie. that he/she is actually in control, rather than the parents.


2. If parents did not ensure, by force when necessary, that their children were fed, clothed, washed and rested properly, but only relied on their children going along with parental suggestions in these areas, the parents could be charged with neglect under Section 152 of the Crimes Act 1961.
In other words, parents are expected by law to ensure such things happen, yet these can only be accomplished, in the case of little children, by the occasional use of force.
This Bill will, therefore, put responsible parents between a rock and a hard place, because it forces them either to break the one law or the other.


Please leave the law as it stands - it makes wonderful sense, harmonising with other laws and with the reality of everyday necessity.


Sample Submission 10


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the following reason:

The government would be over-stepping the bounds of its God-given authority were it to adopt this Bill -

The Bible clearly teaches that parents have been given the responsibility, and therefore, the right to bring up their own children, in the way that God wants it done.
Parents are responsible for educating their sons and daughters about life, and for training them in right character.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 states, “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.”

So that no-one thinks this requirement was just for ancient Israel, we will quote from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, to non-Jews, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise) . . . Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:1,2,4.

The Bible does not charge the civil government with this responsibility, for it is a family matter. If the government passes this Bill, it will be dictating to parents how they are to train their children, thereby arrogating to itself power and authority it does not rightly possess.

Therefore, please do not allow this Bill to proceed any further. Rather, allow the law to stand as it is, protecting the responsibility and right of faithful parents to use reasonable force in order to bring up their children according to their God-given mandate.



Sample Submission 11


To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

There are many reasons why one might oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, but one of the major reasons is this:

If the Bill were accepted, and Section 59 removed, the government would be guilty of gross injustice.

The government would be guilty of putting faithful, loving parents, who are seeking merely to obey God’s instructions concerning the raising of their children, into the same legal category as those wretched parents who abuse their children. It will make criminals of good parents.

On the other hand, it will protect those parents who neglect to apply proper means for the discipline and training of their children in good character and habits. It will justify permissive and indulgent parenting, which results in willful, anti-social attitudes and behaviour in children as they grow older - something both harmful to the child and to society.

God is not impressed with, and will judge severely those who have been put in positions of authority but who victimize the righteous and justify the wrong-doer.
This is what God thinks of such people:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil . . .” (Isaiah 5:20)

“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 17:15)


Please do not allow a Bill to be adopted by Parliament that would ipso facto promote injustice, and would call down upon this government the displeasure of the God who has put it there for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of those who do evil.


Sample Submission 12


SUBMISSION RE. BILL PROPOSING REPEAL OF SECTION 59 OF THE CRIMES ACT

To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

We petition the Committee to oppose the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, on the grounds that it is a foolish piece of legislation.

The Bible’s book of wisdom, Proverbs, teaches that reasonable force is required in order to drive the inborn foolishness from our children. In Proverbs 22:15 it says:

“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.”

Proverbs furthermore teaches that parents are to train their children to think and act in a certain way - a good way.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6)

Training implies the use of force, for it forces children in a certain direction, to do things they do not necessarily want to do, but which will ultimately be good for them, eg. to show respect for age or authority. Without the use of reasonable force such training of children for the good is impossible.

This Bill goes directly contrary to the wisdom of God as found in the Bible, and particularly in Proverbs. It is, therefore, legislating for foolishness.

Please let the Committee demonstrate its wisdom in rejecting this Bill, and leaving things as they currently stand, allowing parents to train and discipline their children in all wisdom for their good.


Sample Submission 13


SUBMISSION RE. BILL PROPOSING REPEAL OF SECTION 59 OF THE CRIMES ACT

To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

I am strongly opposed to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for this crucial reason:

It constitutes the imposition of one worldview onto all the people of New Zealand, regardless of their religious convictions. The Bill reflects a view of children that suggests they are basically good-hearted, and only need to be educated in order for them to choose to do right and to reject the wrong. It also assumes that children belong to the state, and not to families, and parents in particular.

On both counts I am under religious conviction to the opposite view and practice. I am conscience-bound to view my children as being naturally born with a depraved heart, and as belonging to myself as their parent (they are my children, as opposed to being Sue Bradford’s children!). The Bible convicts me of these views. It is a religious/spiritual/faith thing for me, and indeed, for all Bible-believing Christians.
This is quite apart from the fact that the majority of New Zealand’s parents, Christian or not, do not agree with Ms Bradford’s view that reasonable force by way of correction is wrong or abuse, but rather view it as necessary and beneficial.

Were this Bill to be accepted and enforced, it would force me and many a Christian parent to break the law, for we must obey God rather than the government when put to the choice between the two.

Furthermore, if a parent were to be convicted of abuse and sentenced to a term in prison, merely because he was following his religious convictions in forcing his child to do something contrary to its will, the government would be chargeable with religious persecution. The same could be said if he were to have his children taken from him.
The civil authorities would be guilty of breaching his right to the freedom of exercise of his religion.

If this Bill passes into law, the government will undoubtedly cause and face widespread civil disobedience. This is an oppressive piece of legislation, based on bad principles, and therefore will trouble this nation.

I entreat that it be voted down and not proceeded with; but that Section 59, which in no way justifies true abuse, but guards the freedom of loving parents to bring up their children according to their religious convictions and worldview, be left untouched.


Sample Submission 14


SUBMISSION RE. BILL PROPOSING REPEAL OF SECTION 59 OF THE CRIMES ACT

To: Justice and Electoral Select Committee,

Family Integrity is opposed to this bill for the following reasons:

1. The government has no right to do this -
God has given to parents, not the state, the responsibility of training children in right behaviour and belief. Deuteronomy 6:6-7 states, “6"These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7"You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
And in the new Testament, in Ephesians 6:1,2,4 the Bible says, “1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. _2HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), 4Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but ()bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
This bill will greatly hinder parents in the exercise of this God-given responsibility, and therefore represents an invasion by the state into the home.

2. The government would be unjust to do this -

This bill will make criminals of wise and loving parents who, following God’s instructions, are training their children to do and think rightly concerning God and their fellow man.

God makes clear in the Bible what He thinks of those officials in positions of authority who judge according to inverted standards.
In Proverbs 17:15 it says, “15He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.”
Also in Isaiah 5:20-21 this is echoed with the following words, “20Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil . . . 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!”




3. The government would be unwise to do this -

As it stands, this bill makes any form of parental training/discipline impossible, as it renders the parent unable to require anything of the child which he/she does not want to do.
Yet, the Bible teaches that children need to have discipline/training as the means to drive out of their hearts their innate foolishness (the latter involving an inclination to rebel against all God-given authority). Proverbs 22:6,15 state:
6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.
15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
The book of Proverbs presents us with true wisdom. It is, therefore, foolishness to ignore or contradict its teachings, in the present case, by outlawing the necessary use of justifiable force by parents with regard to their children.

4. The government would be imposing its worldview on all citizens, thereby impinging on their right to freedom of religion -
It should be clear from the above reasons that we believe this Bill constitutes a potential attack on our religious values and practices, and would require us to act contrary to the dictates of conscience before God.
Sue Bradford is seeking to foist her worldview on all of New Zealand, in spite of the fact that most parents do not see things the same way, and many of these parents consciously hold to and practice a worldview that is decidedly opposed to hers.
Were this Bill to be enacted as law, the government of New Zealand would be forcing Christian parents to break the law, for, when it comes down to a choice as to whether we will obey God or men, we must obey God. The apostles Peter and John, facing a similar choice over a different practice, said to the religious authorities of their day who were forbidding them from preaching the gospel in obedience to Jesus’ command,
“Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19-20)

Does the government really want to cause widespread civil disobedience for the sake of a bad piece of legislation?


CONCLUSION:
We recommend that this Bill be voted down and not allowed to proceed. Instead, maintain Section 59 of the Crimes Act as it stands, for it is a brilliant piece of legislation. It protects responsible parents in their legitimate use of force to correct and train their children, and it allows proper authorities to pursue cases wherein the use of force is not reasonable in the circumstances nor used for the purpose of correction.



Newsletter #68 -- Radio attack


Greetings!

Yesterday Radio NZ aired a rather biased talk show attacking the
institution of smacking and having a good go a Christians while they
were at it.

You can listen to it at:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/afternoons

Scroll down a bit and then click on "the Panel" (part 1 - 23min. & 26
sec.)

They use all the classic propaganda tools:

1. The equate hitting with smacking, although the researcher did
acknowledge there is a difference, a nuance not picked up too well by
the others.
2. Christians and their world view were attacked and vilified. Canadian
researcher Dr Joan Durrant told me she agreed that this was a battle of
world views, and that one was going to have to prevail over the other.
From the way these were talking on this show, there will be no peaceful
co-existence.
3. They incongruously say smacking will never be eliminated, nor should
it be! Yet repeal of Section 59 will make it a case of criminal assault.

4. They talked only of physical punishment. Section 59 justifies
correction, not punishment.
5. They never once referred to Section 59 or its wording, "force by way
of correction as long as it is reasonable in the circumstances", but
they were quick to condemn jury trials, implying that their 12 peers on
the jury could not tell the difference between "violent abuse" and
"reasonable force", even though the jury had all the facts, all the
circumstances laid out in front of them. All these talk show people had
was poor memories of newspaper or radio accounts (one referred to a man
found guilty of using a horse whip: it was a woman acquitted of using a
riding crop).

Please ensure you are writing to your MP and writing a submission.
Plenty of help for submissions on this website.

Regards,
Craig Smith


Newsletter #69 -- Formal Complaint


Dear Friends,

I just posted this to Radio New Zealand as a formal complaint to the
talk show attacking the institution of smacking anf vilifying
Christians.

Craig Smith


31 January 2006
Chief Executive
Radio New Zealand
PO Box 123
WELLINGTON

Formal Complaint

I wish to make a formal complaint about the Radio New Zealand Afternoons
with Paul Brennan programme aired Friday 27 January 2006 at 4:08pm. You
can listen to it at:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/afternoons/20060127
Scroll down a bit and then click on "the Panel" (part 1 - 23min. & 26
sec.)

The progrramme was a grossly biased and hopelessly ill-informed talk
show attacking the institution of smacking and vilifying both Christian
doctrine and Christians in general. The host was Paul Brennan and the
guests were TV3's Bomber Bradbury and poet Penny Ashton. Joining on the
phone was Otago researcher Dr Jane Millichamp.

This programme breached the broadcasting standards in the following
ways:

Principle 4: Balance was breached in that they presented only one side
and openly scoffed and ridiculed the point of view put forward in
material published by our organisation.

After reading Proverbs 22:15 from the Bible, Brennan said: "These people
are nuts."

After reading a section from one of our publications, partly explaining
a point of traditional, historical, orthodox (not fringe in other words)
Christian doctrine, Ashton said: "This is disgusting: so children are
innately evil and we need to beat it out of them." She emphasised the
word "beat" as if it were the only way to do it, as if that equated with
the methodology of smacking advocated in our publications. This is
manifestly untrue as anyone who would care to read our documents would
see immediately. (Copies are enclosed.)

A bit later on, Brennan asks, "What are these people on?" Bradbury
replies, "Party pills."

These comments are offensively contemptuous of our Holy Scriptures and
of our doctrine.

Most of the rest of their comments were not only incredibly shallow and
ill-informed, they were clearly ignorant of a vast area of child
discipline known to caring parents over millennia of how to responsibly
use corporal correction in a loving manner to produce secure, mature,
self-confident citizens.

Their continual scoffing at our position (which is that of a large
number of New Zealanders, both Christians and nonChristians) would give
a listening audience the impression that no other position than theirs
was logically or morally tenable. Their particular anti-Christian world
view dominated and no one has been given equal air time to present the
other world view.

Principle 6: Accuracy was breached because of the many ill-informed
statements made and also in the way some were made, as if they were
practising their propaganda tools.

They equated smacking with hitting and beating. This is a deliberate
misrepresentation. The words clearly do not mean the same. A cricket
batter does not smack the ball, he hits it. A thug might beat a victim
but is never said to smack his victim. To her credit, the researcher who
joined the show, Dr Jane Millichamp, did acknowledge the difference, but
it was a difference not picked up by the others.

They talked only of physical punishment. Section 59, of which they
claimed to be speaking, justifies correction, not punishment. They never
once referred to the wording of Section 59: "force used by way of
correction as long as it is reasonable in the circumstances". Yet they
were quick to condemn jury trials, which came to considered conclusions
that did not agree with their poorly-informed opinions. By doing this
they were implying that their 12 peers on the jury could not tell the
difference between "violent abuse" and "reasonable force", even though
the jury had all the facts, all the circumstances laid out in front of
them. All these talk show people had was poor memories of newspaper or
radio accounts. One talk show guest referred to a man let off for using
a horse whip on his daughter: he was trying to recount the recent Timaru
case of a woman acquitted of using a riding crop on her son. Penny
Ashton made a big deal of a parent acquitted by jury trial of smacking a
child with a 30 centimetre by 2 centimetre "big wooden rod"...but this
is smaller than the average wooden spoon! Apart from the misleading and
inaccurate language used to describe both these cases, these people are
saying their assessments, based on incomplete media accounts, are more
accurate than the jury's assessment, when the jury had all the facts.


Principle 7: Social Responsibility was breached very badly in that the
character of all Christians was seriously denigrated in a libellous way
during discussion of a social issue that has been in the forefront of
public discussion for quite some time, and is the subject of a Bill
currently before Parliament.

They say this about Christians:

Brennan: "They like whacking children."
Bradbury: "They love it."

These comments are clearly libellous to all Christians. Saying that
Christians as a group like or love whacking children is an outrageous
accusation.

When are we going to hear an apology?

When are you going to give equal time to those who properly understand
the issues?

When are you going to extend to Bible believing Christians the air time
and credibility you extend to these talk show celebrities?

Yours faithfully,
Craig S. Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter #70-74


Newsletter # 74 -- The Smacking Smoke Screen

Media Release
For immediate Distribution

The Smacking Smoke-Screen

So now Child, Youth and Family Minister Ruth Dyson has joined Green MP Sue Bradford and the Prime Minister in denying what is obvious hoping to fool the public in order to advance their anti-family agenda. They all say smacking will not be banned if this Crimes Amendment Bill goes ahead and Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed.

They do this in the face of a letter I received from the Commissioner of Police, and then circulated widely, in which he says very plainly that smacking will become an act of criminal assault if Section 59 is repealed. Even Children's Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro had to admit at a Forum of child advocacy groups she held in Wellington February 9th that repeal would criminalise parents. Both Bradford and Dr Kiro, by the way,
have adopted the UN's extreme position that even the lightest of smacks constitutes violence and abuse by definition.

But all this about smacking is a smoke screen. The real objective of repealing Section 59 is to reduce parents to the status of government baby-sitters, for their legal ability to exercise definite authority over their children will be completely removed.


For more information or an interview, contact:
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter # 73 -- Misinformation


Family Integrity media release: for immediate release

15 February 2006

Mis-Informing the public on smacking

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday maintained that New Zealanders are well informed about the debate in our country over section 59 of the Crimes Act, which gives parents a defence of reasonable force used by way of correction, provided the force used is reasonable under the circumstances.

Yet one of her own ministers, Child, Youth and Family Minister Ruth Dyson, considers that children are legally disadvantaged in comparison to adults so far as the use of force is concerned. That would be true if children held the same status as autonomous, independent individuals as adults do. But children are highly dependent and far from autonomous. That is why they cannot drive, drink, vote, enter into contracts, etc. Dyson's arguments are ridiculous.

Family Integrity National Director Craig Smith says that the public has been badly misinformed and misled by the anti-smacking lobby. The Crimes Amendment Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act will pull virtually all authority out from under all parents. The Bill criminalizes the use of "force", not just physical discipline. Smacking will become an assault, as the Police Commissioner has confirmed. But so will "time out" since it requires forcing a child to sit still.

"You simply cannot discipline without using force," says Mr Smith. "And if you cannot back up the requirements and the prohibitions you place on your children with some kind of force, then you have no authority. You are reduced to making suggestions which you hope will be followed." Yet Green MP Sue Bradford has said that she does not intend to ban smacking. What Ms Bradford intends is irrelevant. She knows full well that her Bill will outlaw physical discipline and reduce parental authority toward their own children to the same level as total strangers, for so she says in the Bill's explanatory note: "[Parents] will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of
force against children is concerned." Bradford goes on to illogically claim that the Police will not prosecute for light smacks with an open hand, for they will use common sense and
let such minor actions go, even though the Police themselves have said even light smacks will constitute acts of criminal assault, worth as much as two years in jail, if Section 59 is ever repealed.

"Since when has a law been made on the basis that it won't be enforced?" Mr Smith asks.

"This whole issue is far too important to get it wrong. Even Dr Kiro the Children's Commissioner conceded at the "Effective Discipline" Forum she and the Families Commission put on in Wellington last Thursday the 9th that repealing Section 59 would criminalize too many parents, that it could not be glossed over with rhetoric."

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #72 -- No suport for repeal


See Media Release - 17 February
Can be read HERE


Newsletter #71 -- Talk Fest


Dear Friends,

The anti-smacking lobby (I personally think they may be more accurately
described as the anti-parent lobby) know for a fact that they are vastly
outnumbered. They know that they do not have public support. They know
that what they are promoting gets the average man or woman in the street
really angry.

That is why they say silly things like, "The Government needs to show
leadership in this issue," meaning: forget that this is supposed to be a
democracy, do what we self-appointed experts say.

They have the ear of the media (who appear to be populated by the same
kind of people), but few have bothered to listen to the real experts in
this whole thing: the parents themselves.

We need to make ourselves heard. We should in fact hound the MPs and the
press day and night to let them know we are not impressed by this
extremist, minority group out to repeal Section 59. This is not hard to
do.

1. Write a submission. I've talked alot about this already. See
http://Section59.org

2. Write to your MP. Write to a few others while you're at it. Send the
same letter, just with a different salutation. Any of them may be
reached with the address: ".........., MP, Parliament Buildings,
Wellington" and you do not need to put a stamp on the envelope. You can
also find their email and snail mail addresses and titles and what
electorate if any they're from at:
http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/YourMP/ListMPs/

3. Write to the members of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.
They are all MPs and can be reached c/- Parliament Buildings,
Wellington. They are:
Russell Fairbrother
Christopher Finlayson (Deputy Chairperson)
Ann Hartley
Lynne Pillay (Chairperson)
Nandor Tanczos
Nicky Wagner
Dr Richard Worth.

4. Write to your local newspaper.

These are unusual times. Therefore they require unusual tactics. Please
write to one of these now and every couple of days. It only takes a few
minutes. You don't need to say much...just express your opposition to
the Crimes Amendment Bill that wants to repeal Section 59. We want to
keep Section 59 in place, just as it is.

Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director


Newsletter #70 -- Wellington Forum


Dear Friends,

My adult daughter Genevieve and I were invited to attend a forum titled
"Effective discipline - what works best for children and families" that
was held in Wellington on Thursday 9 February 2006. It was put on by the
Families Commission and the Children's Commissioner.

It was attended by at most 40 people. They were from the Families
Commission, Office of the Children's Commissioner, Barnardos, Plunket,
Anglican Trust, Youth for Christ, Open Home Foundation, a Baptist
organisation, the NZ Law Society and many other child advocacy groups.
Oh, yes, and two of us were from Family Integrity.

Most there were clearly in favour of banning smacking and of repealing
Section 59. A few claimed to be unsure and certainly were quite
tentative in their comments. Two of us were very clear that Section 59
had to be retained and that the state should not try to extend its
jurisdiction over into the family's jurisdiction as this Bill was
clearly doing.

The day opened with a brainstorming session in small groups. I will
mention ideas that came up again throughout the day, not all ideas that
came up: the state should provide free parent training courses; the
state should relieve the tremendous pressure many parents are under (the
pressure was not identified, but I think it meant financial pressure);
there is a concern that repeal will criminalise all parents; the media
needs to be educated to report in a more balanced way; what does
research say?



The opening address was by Dr Rajen Prasad, the Families Commissioner.
(The CEO of the Families Commission was also there, Mr Paul Curry who
lived in Palmerston North for quite a while and was a National Party
candidate there. He and I had a good talk about Palmerston North, which
is where I've lived now for 26 years.)

Dr Prasad said his purpose was to advocate for the interests of NZ
families, whatever the form of the "family" may take. He also outlined
five areas attached to this debate.

1. Research: he said the negative aspects of physical
punishment are convincing though of course not proven.
2. Parents do have a right to determine how to discipline
their own children.
3. What will be gained by status quo? What will be gained
by changing?
4. Repeal could well mean criminalisation of parents...how
can that be avoided?
5. It is easier to use force than learn new tricks.

He said that leadership by Government is needed to get the change...and
that the support for the change would follow. In other words, don't
let's worry about the fact that the vast majority of NZers do not favour
repeal: repeal anyway and watch support for it grow after the fact.
Several others made this same call for Government leadership.

Questions were called for. I asked that people be careful not to
conflate words denoting abuse and violence with the word smacking; no
distinction is generally made in these debates between violence and
reasonable force. Another questioned the reliability of research and
statistics when scientific "causality" could not be proven by such
statistics but only an association shown. Dr Prasad agreed that one
could not prove that smacking caused negative behaviours in a person
later on, but the association between smacking in early days and
negative behaviours in latter days was consistent and all seemed to
point in the same direction. (I must comment: other factors are also
consistently shown to be associated with negative behaviours in latter
days: a persons ethnicity, poverty, neighbourhoods, education, etc. In
addition, researchers rarely separate out judicial and controlled
smacking from out-of-control beating by enraged (out-of-control)
parents.)

The next speaker was Dr Cindy Kiro, Commissioner for Children. She
described her job as to advocate for all children and to see that the
UNCROC agreement is applied in NZ law. Her vision to see children's
rights recognised and supported.

She said that to comply with Article 19 of UNCROC requires repeal of
Section 59. (Art 19 talks of "violence, injury or abuse" while Section
59 talks of "reasonable force used by way of correction." Dr Kiro and
others believe that Section 59 is by definition allowing for violence,
injury and abuse since any physical use of force to them is violence.
They have what I believe most people would call an extreme position.
They certainly see the whole thing in black and white terms, with no
middle ground at all. Every time she talked of "discipline" it was as if
violence and abuse was the norm. She said concern for criminalisation
was minimal and that arrest was unlikely. But she insisted that we must
send a clear message: do not hit kids. She also wants to employ
emotional literacy programmes in schools and in communities to develop
empathy for the child's point of view.

At Question time I disagreed with her statement that no other piece of
law allows assault on children since Sections 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48,
52, 53, 55, 56, 58 & 60 of the Crimes Act all allow for assault against
children in certain circumstances, just as Section 59 allows for assault
under certain circumstances. She replied she would interpret those
sections of the law differently than I had.

Genevieve stood and congratulated Dr Kiro on her passion for protecting
children and for applying the provisions of UNCROC, one of which was to
provide legal protection for children before as well as after birth. So
when was she going to do something about the 18,500 brutal murders of
unborn children each year? She replied that she did not think she needed
to come prepared to give her position on abortion (which Genevieve had
not asked for) and then said her commitment to children was from birth
onwards.

Next speaker was Frances Joychild of the NZ Law Commission. She said
Section 59 goes back 100s of years & was used to justify beatings of
wives, slaves, animals, etc., and now children are the only ones left
unemancipated.
Said that s. 59 has:
1. produced inconsistent decisions. (I must comment: by
this they mean IT APPEARS inconsistent, as in, one case a dad in New
Plymouth smacked a child with an open hand, pleaded Section 59 and got
nailed. Another case a mum in Timaru smacks with a "horse whip" [it was
in fact a riding crop], and she gets acquitted. It sounds inconsistent.
That is because the two contexts, the "reasonable in the circumstances"
part of these two cases were poles apart. Consequently this is an
unfair, and in my opinion, a rather devious statement to make to cast
doubt on Section 59's usefulness.)
2. created uncertainty as to where the line is. (I comment
again: you cannot have any certainty as to where the line is, since the
context, the circumstances change the entire nature of the case. This is
simply a devious variation of point number one. Let me give a
hypothetical example: you read in the paper that during an intense scene
of domestic violence, a boy is struck 5 times by his father with a
3-foot fibre glass rod, leaving bruising on his arms and back. The
father pleads Section 59 and is acquitted. It sounds like a clear case
of child abuse. Then you get a copy of the court transcript and read
what the jury had presented to them: the boy was 14 years old, stood six
foot two inches tall, 185 pounds and was the school champion in boxing
and club champion in karate. The father is 65 years old, five foot four
inches tall, and at 98 pounds is a life-long asthmatic with lingering
limitations from polio as a child. The father took to the son with the
rod after the boy smashed several pieces of furniture, punched his much
smaller 18-year-old brother in the stomach causing him to throwup, and
was in the act of hurling insults and verbal abuse at his mother, the
father's wife, while still holding remnants of a broken chair. The
father said he suspected the boy was influenced by some drug which the
boy denied and no blood or breath test even hinted at, yet his behaviour
was so out of character. The boy seemed to come to his full senses once
the father began beating him, according to the father. The boy said he
simply got angry when his mum told him he was not allowed to go camping
with his boozy mates. The whole incident was over and settled as far as
the family was concerned. The son held no grudge against his father. The
incident came to CYF's notice only when the father was reported by the
boozy mates who asked how the son got the bruises on his arm.)
3. shown to allow serious assault. (Comment: Section 2 of
the Crimes Act defines even gestures as assault. Parents commit assault,
technically, against their children on a constant, daily basis. Section
59 allows parents to carry out their parenting tasks without fear of
being charged with assault, until they use unreasonable force for some
other reason than "by way of correction." Some of the anti-smacking
lobby say even the lightest tap on the wrist is unacceptable violence.
So when the anti-smacking lobby tells about parents wielding large 2 x
30 cm wooden rods, as was done on Radio NZ recently, we do get
worried, until we realise that 2 x 30 cm is smaller than the average
wooden spoon.)
4. conflicts with Domestic Violence Act.

Frances also revealed that the UN Committee on UNCROC says that a smack,
however light, is violence. She also reckons that repeal would then need
to be followed by a specific law banning physical punishment.

Beth Woods from UNICEF then asked: What do we do about those who BELIEVE
in physical discipline...no amount of programmes and education will
change them. Genevieve and I immediately thought of ourselves: we
believe in it. Was Beth Woods suggesting compulsory re-education camps
for those whose belief systems do not follow the party line?

We broke up into small groups again and grappled with some set
questions. After lunch each group simply reported back to the whole.
Here were some of the popular thoughts:

Introduce Compulsory Parenting classes in high schools. Someone bemoaned
the fact that much of what such a programme would teach would be
undermined by the parents at home. (I pointed out that much of what the
parents are teaching at home is being undermined by the schools.) Get
the media on board; have courses to teach how to emphasise in one's
relations with others; consult with youth at every step; have the state
pay for all resources, support and courses; build strong communities and
strong personal relationships; teach children logical consequences and
give lots of positive reinforcement; we may need to be careful of simply
adopting a European model to solve our violence problem; repeal will
criminalise parents; repeal seems to some like such a simple solution to
violence, but maybe we'd have to re-define assault or give police new
guidelines for pressing charges.


During the summing up statements, it was interesting to see Dr Kiro
concede that repeal of Section 59 would cause "criminalisation of
parents to be an issue, it cannot be glossed over, it does need to be
dealt with."


Dr Prasad was born in Fiji but has lived most of his life in New
Zealand. He is a very likable gentleman, easy to converse with and very
friendly, with a respect and sensitivity toward spiritual aspects of
life. It may be possible for some of us to convince him that we would
see our families severely harmed by repeal of Section 59 because we hold
to a high standard of personal self-discipline in word and deed and
attitude, one that children do not aspire to naturally. Force of many
kinds is required to impart this discipline, yet it will be illegal to
do if Section 59 is repealed. Likewise, those of us who believe that
smacks are necessary to drive foolish acts and attitudes of
rebelliousness from our children's hearts when they manifest themselves
may be able to convince him that our families will be forbidden to
follow our spiritual convictions if Section 59 is repealed, doing great
damage to our consciences and harming our spiritual health.

Dr Kiro did not appear to be swayed by such arguments. She is totally
committed and will be committing her large staff and larger financial
resources to seeing Section 59 repealed and smacking banned as an act of
criminal assault. Because they know they do not have public support,
that the vast majority of New Zealanders are against such a ban, they
call for "leadership" by Government: i.e., ignore public opinion and do
as we experts say.

Other Christians there were not prepared to declare their position
clearly. It was painful to see, for we know something of what they felt:
wanting to preserve your objectivity and academic respectability while
awaiting the opportunity to present something of the Biblical Christian
position in regards to parenting responsibilities and the training of
children, hoping that one would not be called upon to actually address
smacking or how one could possibly justify "hitting" children. I tried
to maintain that smacking and hitting were two different activities, for
why do we have different words? People at my table flatly refused to
acknowledge any difference at all, although Dr Prasad had done so in
passing during his remarks. And the other Christians there were also
wary of being associated too closely with us radicals from Family
Integrity.

Genevieve and I had decided to speak without self-consciousness of the
Biblical reasons behind the use of the rod of correction. This turned
out to be the most liberating of experiences....no need to worry about
coming up with creative ways to couch Biblical terms and concepts in
secular language, no need to worry about causing offense, for everything
we had to say we already knew was totally offensive anyway. Because we
knew some would be totally unfamiliar with Biblical language, we also
knew we would need to go slowly and explain ourselves perhaps a bit more
thoroughly than normal to ensure our audiences stayed with us. And we
also knew from past experience that one does not wait for the
opportunity: one creates the opportunities. So we had stayed up late the
night before preparing wee discussion documents of our own, three of
them, to address the three broad questions we knew they would put to the
discussion groups during the forum.

So when asked "What are some effective ways to discipline?", I had a
ready answer: "There are two aspects to discipline, positive and
negative. Positive is being the total role model, the tutor, the mentor.
In fact, it was investing lots of close personal time to actually DO
TOGETHER those things you want your child to learn to do." This went
down really well and elicited some good discussion. Then on the negative
side of discipline I introduced smacking as a very effective way to
correct rebellion, not childishness, and drive it from a child's heart
when it manifests itself in the child. Paul Curry himself asked me to
explain why I felt it necessary to smack. What an invitation! Starting
with the Fall of Adam & Eve I got to explain the doctrine of original
sin, of driving foolishness from the heart as per Proverbs 22:15,
cleansing from guilt and restoring the ruptured relationship with the
parents. This did not go down well at all. And the concept of guilt in
the child really annoyed some people.

What we can do from here that might be helpful:

1. Get our submissions in by 28 February.
2. Write to Dr Kiro, Children's Commissioner, PO Box 5610,
Wellington, children@occ.org.nz , and ask
why she has decided not to do anything about the certain deaths of
18,500 New Zealand children each year, even though the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) speaks about it in several places.
3. Write to both Dr Kiro and Dr Prasad, Families
Commissioner, PO Box 2839, Wellington, enquiries@nzfamilies.org.nz
, with some good ideas and
strategies on how to reduce violence in society. At one point I said
public schools were often forms of institutionalised child abuse for
children are forced to attend, and no one ever asks their opinion about
attendance (Dr Kiro always says we should ask the children, but of
course she doesn't want to ask the unborn how they feel when the forceps
come to rip off their other arm). School children are forced to sit in
non-ergonomically designed chairs and desks, carry back packs generally
way too heavy for them, be bullied unmercifully as everyone at the forum
already admitted was a problem, be exposed to all kinds of drug taking
habits and be defiled by some kids on campus who regularly watch the
most vile and degrading pornographic videos know to man. I was surprised
at how much agreement I got on those points!


Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter # 75-78 -- Submission Deadlines


Newsletter # 75 -- Two not Twenty copies

Dear Friends,

I wrote to the Secretary of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee
to ask if 20 copies of the submissions are needed, and what would happen
if people only sent in one copy? Here is her reply....we only need to
send TWO copies, not TWENTY!



21 February 2006

Dear Mr Smith

In it's press release, the Justice and Electoral Committee only
requested two copies of submissions, the reason for only requesting two
submissions is because the Justice and Electoral Committee are taking
part in a e-Committee pilot over the next few months, so submissions
will be scanned and sent to members electronically. Once the
submissions are received they are ALL sent out to committee members to
read. Submissions are never ignored or discounted.

Regards
Julie Jordan

Julie Jordan
Parliamentary Officer (Committee Support)
Justice and Electoral Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

Phone (04) 471 9687



So get onto those submissions! They are due in by 28 Feb, end of this
month.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter # 76 -- Submission Deadlines


Submissions on Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child
Discipline) Amendment Bill
(Anti-smacking bill or anti-parent authority bill)
DEADLINE 5 p.m. 28 February 2006
Submissions on Sue Bradford's Bill to Repeal S. 59 of the Crimes Act
1961 should be sent by e-mail to:
Ms Catherine Parkin
Secretary
Justice and Electoral Committee
Parliament Buildings
(Only TWO copies are required, not TWENTY as previously stated)

or you can email your submission to:
C/-
julie.jordan@parliament.govt.nz or SC-JE@parliament.govt.nz
DEADLINE 5 p.m. 28 February 2006
Request an acknowledgment
If aubmissions are to be sent hardcopy, only two copies are required and
must reach committee secretary by deadline.



Newsletter # 77 -- email not preferred


Ok, folks, the latest:

A friend had rung the Justice and Electoral Committee Secretary. She had
told him emailed submissions would be fine. So I sent an email around
you all to that effect.

My friend's emailed submission bounced. When he rang the same secretary
to ask about it, she now says hard copies are required.

So, if you have sent an email copy of a submission, or if you plan to,
let them know that a hard copy is following. They need two (not twenty)
copies of each submission, each signed.

Email them by 5pm tomorrow 28 Feb., letting them know a hard copy is
following.

Email addresses:
julie.jordan@parliament.govt.nz
SC-JE@parliament.govt.nz

Snail Mail address:
Justice and Electoral Select Committee
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

I'm sorry about this mess up. It is thoroughly frustrating and annoying.

Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



Newsletter # 78 -- More on emails


A Family Integrity subscriber contacted Julie Jordan again just now and
got this reply:


As the Committee is only calling for two submissions, it is acceptable
to send your submission via eamil as a Word Document.

Regards
Julie Jordan



Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter # 79 -- Reply from Radio NZ

Read reply from Radio NZ

Newsletter # 80 -- Submissions as public domain


Dear Friends,

It has been very heartening that so many folks made the effort to write submissions on Bradford's anti-smacking bill. Most will have received letters of acknowledgement by now. Some folks have expressed a bit of concern about the fact that the letter of acknowledgement also says the submissions will become part of the public domain and will be posted on the Justice and Electoral Committee Parliamentary website.

If this is of concern, Cath Anyan, Clerk of the Committee, has advised what to do. Send a single copy of your submission with your personal details removed. Also send a covering letter that does have your personal details saying you do not want your details displayed with your submission. They will then display only the submission that does not have your personal details on it. By personal details I mean name and contact details.

Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter #82 -- Unique ID numbers for all children


Greetings all,

Family Integrity's mission statement includes opposition to unwarranted government intrusion into family life. Repeal of Section 59 is certainly that. And so is this issue.

A poll on www.stuff.co.nz this morning asks if all children should be issued with unique ID numbers so various state agencies could share information on them and track them, etc. Such provisions are in a bill awaiting its second reading. Home educators are specifically mentioned in this bill as also needing these ID numbers. (See TEACH Bulletin article attached for more details.)

Perhaps each of us could vote on this poll today at least and then consider writing to our MP...I mean, what good are these numbers apart from streamlining what the state already does, give them an excuse to do more snooping (to justify the expense and make use of the expensive new numbering system they just put in place....one has to be responsible with tax-payers' money after all), and to further de-personalise all children to mere numbers. Besides, when the Familes Commission, the Childrens Commission and Social Development Minister Benson-Pope all think it's a good deal, you know there is cause for concern.

Do pass this to other email groups if you like.

Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity


Newsletter # 83 -- Submission numbers


From: Craig Smith
Sent: Monday, 27 March 2006 09:57
To: Julie Jordan
Subject: numbers


Greetings Julie,

Family Integrity is particularly interested in the progress of the
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification of Child Discipline)
Amendment Bill.

Are you able to please inform us of the number of submissions received?

Are you able to give a rough breakdown of how many were for the Bill and
how many against please?

Has the Select Committee settled on a schedule for hearing submissions
on this Bill?

Thanks so much for your help.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity



From: Julie Jordan
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:57 AM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: RE: numbers


Dear Craig

The committee received 1712 submission with around 300 requesting to
appear before the committee to speak to their submission. As of yet we
have not done a breakdown of submissions, nor has the committee
indicated when they would like to start hearing evidence.

Regards

Julie Jordan
Parliamentary Officer (Committee Support)
Justice and Electoral Committee
Select Committee Office
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

Phone (04) 471 9687



Newsletter #84 -- Affording a worker


5 April 2006

Dear Friends of Family Integrity,

A Family Integrity supporter and home schooling dad of five children here in Palmerston North, Ed Rademaker, has been underemployed for over a year since facing redundancy in his previous position. Family Integrity has been in a position to offer Ed a few hours a week at $10 an hour over the past few months, and he has done a marvellous job helping us with strategising and writing submissions for people as we fought to oppose the Bradford anti-smacking Bill.

Family Integrity would like to take Ed on virtually full-time, and he is keen to continue in this ministry. Finance is, of course, the problem.

He is willing to start with Family Integrity, Lord willing, toward the end of April here at our offices at 33 Matamau St., Palmerston North (same place as the Home Education Foundation), where we have a workstation for him with high-speed computer/internet access networked with our other computers. Funds are on hand to see him through six weeks at 30 hours a week., $10 an hour. We have so far one person giving $100/month for Ed & Carolyn’s support. We need a minimum of $1290 a calendar month to make this work.

Could you please seek the Lord’s will as to whether He would have you give something to this ministry which will benefit Ed and his family as well as Family Integrity (and he will probably also help the Home Education Foundation from time to time)? If you are interested, email us to work out whether it be a once-off donation or monthly automatic payment, or whatever suits best. At present Family Integrity is not registered as a charitable trust. However, Ed’s first task will be to ensure that it is registered as such as soon as possible, making all donations to Family Integrity, including those marked for Ed’s support, tax deductible.


Yours for our Families’ Integrity,

Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation


Newsletter # 85 -- Debate Sunday


Dear Friends,

I am to debate Ian Hassal, the first Children's Commissioner, this Sunday 23 April, at the Auckland clubrooms of the Rationalists and Humanists Society. It will be the first time I've ever participated in a formal debate. Looking forward to it. If the opposition sticks to the logical parametres given below, they won't have much to say!!

Rationalist House
64 Symonds Street
Auckland City

Start time is 7:00pm.

Rationalists & Humanists are fairly evenly divided on the ethics of smacking, so there will not be an audience bias either way.



-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth McKenzie [mailto:thermophile@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Craig Smith;
Subject: Re: Debate Sunday


Hi Craig & Ian,



The moot is: "That Section 59 of the Crimes Act be repealed."

There will be a short introduction from the Chair.

The Speaker For the motion will go first.
The Speaker Against the motion will go second.

Each case presented will be 20 minutes long.

Debaters may ask questions of their opponents when they present their case.
These questions may be responded to in the rebuttal time.

The speaker for the motion may have a rebuttal time of 15 minutes.
The speaker against the motion may then have a rebuttal time of 15 minutes.

The audience will then be able to ask questions for 20 minutes.

The debate will then close, speakers will be thanked and refreshments
will be served.

There is a data profector, overhead projector, lecturn and whiteboard
available.

Debaters should keep in mind that their cases will be evaluated based on
the weight of evidence.

The Rationalist audience is after solid information rather than
propaganda, so you may wish to avoid the following:

1. Arguing by repeating the argument over and over.

2. Arguing that your opponent is biased and should not be believed.

3. Arguing from authority (example: "Linus Pauling is a famous
scientist, so he must be right ..." or "the Edmonds cookbook is the most
popular book in New Zealand, so it must be right ...")

4. Arguing from consensus or tradition (example: "more than 80% of
people believe that rape inside of marriage is acceptable...")

5. Circular reasoning "The charges of sexual assault are absolutely
untrue, because the police would never do anything like that."

6. Unfalsifiable claims: "No-one has ever proved that the Loch Ness
Monster does not exist".

7. Arguing from esoteric knowledge: "you have to have a supernatural
experience to gain the knowledge that smacking will lead to the
destruction of the earth..."

8. Arguing from nature: "rape occurs in nature...its natural, so it must
be OK"

9. Dodgy statistics (be prepared to be asked who paid for the study and
how large it was)

10. Confusing correlation with causation: "80% of all heart attack
victims own a cell phone. Cell phones may cause heart attacks."

11. Confusing association with causation: "Before I had the heart attack
I had a blood test. Blood tests may cause heart attacks. "

12. Slippery slope and threatening dire conseqences: "smacking leads to
beating, beating leads to the breakdown of society..."

13. Choosing the extremes and omitting the middle ground: "either you
support genetic engineering or you are against genetic engineering"

You can still use these techniques, but be aware that if your opponent
does not pick up on them, the Rationalist audience won't hesitate to
provide you with constructive criticism.

There is more info on debating at http://www.ada.org.nz/fallacy.php

I will write again on Friday to get your approval for the wording when I
introduce you.

Both of you are welcome to bring your family and friends along.

regards
Elizabeth McKenzie (R & H Society)

mobile: 021 2121 599
home: (09) 533 4185



 




 

Equipping parents to do battle to protect the integrity of their family