Join Us

New form

12 March 2007 - Family Integrity #191 -- Turia's support for Bradford bill waivers

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3989276a8153.html

Turia's support for Bradford bill waivers

By IRENE CHAPPLE - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 11 March 2007

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is "wavering" on supporting the anti-smacking bill after spending the week talking to people in her electorate, Te Tai Hauauru.

Turia, who has previously given strong speeches in favour of the bill, said she is concerned Maori and Pacific families would be "targeted and criminalised" if it is passed.

Sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford, the bill would repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which provides a defence of reasonable force for a parent who hits a child. An amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows' would outlaw anything that caused more than "transitory and trifling" injury.

The amendment goes to a vote on Wednesday and the bill - a conscience vote - will face its final vote later this month.

Bradford believes she has 63 votes to defeat Borrows' amendment - including the Maori Party's four MPs. She could also pick up National Party support to push the bill through its final reading if the amendment fails.

However, lobbying against the bill is ferocious and equivocal support from MPs such as Turia has left advocates nervous that numbers could move against them.

Turia told the Star-Times she was concerned Pacific Island and Maori families could be targeted if the bill succeeds. She said she would "probably not" vote for the amendment. However, she was "wavering at the moment whether (the repeal of s59) is the right way to go".

She was concerned it would be "put in place without education and Maori and Pacific Island families are highly likely to be targeted and criminalised ... we need an assurance from government that police will not be going out and arresting people".

Turia said the other Maori MPs would be listening to their constituents and would make their own decisions. Borrows will also speak at the Maori Party's caucus on Tuesday in a final pitch to get their votes.

His pitch comes amid lobbying from organisations including Family First, which has called on Pacific Island groups, churches, and communities to campaign against the bill.

Borrows' said his amendment would ensure normal parents are not criminalised, while supporters of Bradford's bill say it must be passed to combat New Zealand's appalling record of child abuse.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````


Therefore, friends, target and lobby with daily emails the Maori Party MPs. I thoroughly agree with the concerns raised: the Maori and PI communities are going to be hammered with this legislation and will not only be afraid to use any force, but will be afraid to correct their children's behaviour, which in fact is the real target Bradford has been aiming at: to stop parents correcting their children's behaviour.

The real problem will not be the Police so much, though they will be called upon to conduct plenty of investigations of families, which will be traumatic enough. The deadly problem will be involvement by CYFS....they get called in by neighbours, vindictive ex-spouses, enemies, Police and all sorts....and they tend to take the children FIRST and ask questions later.....which is permanently tramatizing for the children, not to mention the agony of not knowing where their children are for the parents.

This proposed legislation is diabolical. It must be opposed.

Here are the Maori MPs:

Te Ururoa Flavell, MP for Waiariki, teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz

Hone Harawira, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz

Dr Pita Sharples, MP for Tamaki Makaurau, pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz

Tariana Turia, MP for Te Tai Hauauru, tariana.turia@parliament.govt.nz
 

10 March 2007 - Family Integrity #190 -- 2 NEW videos on YouTube - Criminalising parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady

10 March 2007 - Family Integrity #190 -- 2 NEW videos on YouTube - Criminalising parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady

These Videos on You Tube are MUST SEE items.

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
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Our Home....Our Castle




Greetings

Just posted two new videos on Youtube - the infamous story of 'the Timaru
Lady' - a cautionary tale.

Previously posted 5 videos getting a good number of hits after just a week.
Pass the links on to all and sundry.

Bradford wants to ban parents from using reasonable force, and yet wants to
force all parents through unreasonable force to accept her ideology. If she
gets her way she will destroy countless numbers of NZ families.

SPREAD THE WORD

All the best

Renton Maclachlan

Criminalising Parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady - 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU6azKjkziI


Criminalising Parents NZ Style - The Timaru Lady - 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9WDjYC6NWg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjklj6yZGPk

Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk45JHr7aBY&mode=related&search=


Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olo4uWHPMyE


Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxV0farmys&mode=related&search=

Criminalising Parents NZ Style - 5 of 5
Contains graphic images - need to be over 18 to view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfmUhGwtE9w&mode=related&search=
 

9 March 2007 Family Integrity #189 -- Eighth Press Release Ideas

9 March 2007 Family Integrity #189 -- Eighth Press Release Ideas

Dear Friends,

This is the 8th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).

Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,

And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.

Also check out this site to help your lobbying efforts: http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/

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
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Our Home....Our Castle

Calling Good Evil

I converted to Christianity at age 23, some 33 years ago, from a life of hedonism. I understand the terms “debauchery” and “licentiousness” and how destructive they are.

But this Government has tried to remove the social stigma attached to the irresponsible lifestyles of debauchery and licentiousness by enhancing the legal status of homosexuals and de factoes, fully legalising prostitution, allowing younger people freer access to alcohol, refusing to replace the unrepresentative and thoroughly desensitised film censors, pushing condom use in schools, allowing party drug use to grow, fostering an abortion-on-demand environment and ensuring contraceptive and abortion supply are the only medical areas where children don’t need parental knowledge or consent. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,” says Isaiah 5:20.

Being personally convinced of the Bible’s definitions of what constitutes good and evil, like thousands of other New Zealand parents, I am unafraid to shoulder my responsibilities toward my children and toward society by using reasonable force, including smacking, to correct my children’s expressions of evil, anti-social behaviour. Woe to me if I don’t. This is a social good the Government is trying to claim is an evil by repealing Section 59.

Why is this Government being so irrational, anti-family and anti-Christian, that it will gladly commit untold damage to good families via Police investigations and untold abuse and trauma to children via CYFS intervention?
 

9 March 2007 - Family Integrity #188 -- NZ National Anthem

9 March 2007 - Family Integrity #188 -- NZ National Anthem

Greetings

We are having such a blessed time singing the New Zealand National Anthem after every meal this month. We enjoy Family Worship after every meal. During that time we read the Bible, sing a few Psalms or Hymns, Pray, review Scripture, sometimes read a doctrinal book. Each month we take a Psalm or Hymn and sing it each time during Family Worship so that we should have it thoroughly memorised by the end of the month. Last month it was Psalm 51, a marvellous Psalm of repentence, and this month Genevieve was creative and found us the 5 verses of the National Anthem. As we sing this we are in prayer for the Nation of New Zealand. This is a great month to be singing it three times a day with Section 59 coming before Parliament again. We wanted to share this with others and thought that more people might like to sing this during this month as well. The words are below.

Blessings
Craig and Barbara Smith
4 Tawa Street, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz/
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz/

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

8 March 2007 Family Integrity #187 -- Seventh Press Release Ideas

Dear Friends,

This is the 7th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).

Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,

And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.

Also check out this site to help your lobbying efforts: http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/

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
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Our Home....Our Castle



Bradford's Bill Now Sanctions Smacking, Beatings and Abuse

Sue Bradford and those favouring repeal argue that the “reasonable force” provisions of Section 59 as it now stands are regularly used by parents and even juries to justify severe beatings and child abuse. It is, therefore, astounding that the rewrite of Section 59 does not remove those provisions at all but instead sets out four large areas wherein this “reasonable force” can be used: see Section (1)(a-d) below.

Current Section 59
59 Domestic Discipline
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.

Proposed Rewrite of Section 59
59 Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

Sections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are unnecessary as they are already covered in other sections of the Crimes Act (see Sections 39-60 of the Crimes Act 1961 at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes). It is funny that Sections (1)(c) and (1)(d) are spelled out, for the Current Section 59 (see above) does not actually allow “reasonable force” to be used for these purposes, but only for the purpose of “correction”. Obviously it has been assumed and understood by the justice system, police and society at large for years and years and years that “correction” has always included these things.

Clearly it has also been assumed and understood all these many years that “reasonable force” has included smacking as well as other things like time-out, grounding, removing privileges, etc.

So this rewrite of Section 59 is not even addressing the one issue Bradford always said was the problem: over-zealous use of “reasonable force”. Since this Bill allows “reasonable force” in so many circumstances, it not only allows everything that was going on previously under this label of “reasonable force”, including smacking, it also allows everything Bradford and co CLAIM was going on previously under this label, including severe beatings and abuse.

Bradford’s Bill as being proposed right now actually allows smacking as well as all the violence and abuse she claims has been going on behind Section 59! How bizarre is that!

The only thing that has changed is that the motivation or purpose of “correction” is being thoroughly demonised and must not even be hinted at if even the smallest degree of force is used in the correction process. (Curiously enough, correction is the ONLY motivation or purpose allowed under the current Section 59.) But this new Section (2) not only rules “correction” out of bounds, it also requires that, in this area of law alone, we are to cut ourselves off from our 800 year heritage of accumulated legal wisdom and practise known as common law.

Something even more disturbing is Section (3). The effect of this appears to be that, should there ever arise a situation where it is not clear if the parents’ actions were preventative or corrective (swatting a permanent marker from the hand drawing graffiti on the neighbour’s fence accompanied by the words, “Don’t do that!” instead of “Stop doing that!”), the corrective interpretation must prevail….meaning that when there is doubt, the parents must be found guilty of correcting their children, a case of criminal assault worth as much as two years in jail!

When will this insanity stop? When will the MPs do as 80% of us have made abundantly clear and dump this outrageously stupid Bill?
 

Family Integrity #186 -- Some encouragement

Family Integrity #186 -- Some encouragement
6 March 2007

Greetings all,

There are three parts to this email:
Part A : some encouragement
Part B : a peek into our possible future if this nutty bill goes through
Part C : some polls to vote in

And as always, please feel free to circulate these emails far and wide.

PART A

I received this from a reader of these newsletters:

"I felt like giving up last week (and no doubt you have felt like that too) but God was good and gave me the message to keep going. I went to a combined church thing last week and "happened" to sit next to Owen Jennings, ex MP. He encouraged me empathically to keep writing, that it does make a difference! It "raises the bar" every time we write. It makes it more difficult for MP's to bulldoze things through."

So hang in there friends!


PART B

An article in the UK says in part:

Children lack discipline and turn to crime because their parents are too scared to smack them, says one of Britain's most senior black policemen.

Parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge, according to Supt Leroy Logan of the Metropolitan Police Force.

He says that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption.

He told the committee that "lack of respect and discipline in the home" was caused by "the parent feeling a sense of helplessness or a fear of prosecution in the moderate correction of their child".


Read more at:
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml  

PART C

Please vote in these two polls under 1 and 2 and see the results of the two previous polls under 3 and 4 .

You need to go to the websites to vote:


1.
http://www.tv3.co.nz
1. Do you support the proposed 'anti-smacking' bill?
Yes, I support the bill in its current form
I would support it if ammendments were made
No, I do not support the bill
Not sure

How about this as a result so far - this is yesterday's news:

1. Do you support the proposed 'anti-smacking' bill?

Yes, I support the bill in its current form 0%
I would support it if ammendments were made 0%
No, I do not support the bill 100%
Not sure 0%


2.
http://www.nzcpd.com/polls.htm  
Do you believe that the removal of section 59 will reduce child abuse in New Zealand?


3. http://tvnz.co.nz
Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?
10% Yes
87% No
3% Not sure

4. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
This one can be found in the archives
Should parents have the right to smack their children for discipline?
Yes 90%
No 10%
Total Votes: 3880

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
 

Family Integrity #185 -- Sixth Press Release Ideas

Family Integrity #185 -- Sixth Press Release Ideas

Dear Friends,

I know it is wearisome to be getting daily emails and sometimes more than one a day. Please bear with it: this is only for a season.....it may be all over one way or another on 28 March.

But consider the issues: if the state succeeds in pushing this home invasion Bill of Bradford''s onto us, we will be affected, our children and grandchildren and who knows how many generations will have to suffer under this unjustifiable intervention by ideological radicals.

It has fallen to us to be the watchmen, the protectors and defenders of our individual family integrity....so take up the call to battle and do what you can for a wee while yet: our descendants will be forever grateful.

This is the 6th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).  

Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,

And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at
www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.

Also check out this site to help your lobbying efforts:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/  
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


The Bill Really Is Insane

At last an MP has come out and said what the vast majority of New Zealand’s population has been saying for over a year: that Bradford’s home invasion Bill is insane. (See
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00071.htm  
All thanks and congratulations must go to United Future MP Gordon Copeland. He has pointed out that Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s report of the Law Commission, upon which the Justice and Electoral Committee leaned to compose the current form of Bradford’s anti-parent Bill before Parliament, states that the Bill disallows parents from using any force at all for either corrective or disciplinary purposes. This bans a great deal more than just smacking: enforcing a time out to “think over what you’ve done”, forcing children to apologise for an insult or repay stolen money or simply to do as they were asked will all become crimes of criminal assault worth as much as two years in jail because they seek to correct children’s bad behaviour into good and proper behaviour. How could any sane adult seriously contemplate enacting such absurd, destructive legislation?

And the report also points out that Section 3 of the Bill disallows correction to even be part of an action’s mixed motives. That is, the Bill endeavours to force parents to be pure even in thought. Bradford would legislate that parents’ very hearts and minds must not be soiled with what she would see as the illegal corruption of corrective or disciplinary motives.

As Mr Copeland say, this is just plain nuts, absurd, insane.

Bradford gave us plenty of clues right from the start that her Bill was crazy: the Bill’s original title was a nonsense; she openly stated she wanted to see parents reduced to the same level as everyone else so far as the use of force with their own children is concerned. This would completely erase the fact that children, being both dependent and immature in mental and physical development, need some responsible adults, parents being the obvious ones, to take charge of their lives and force them along the path of character and behaviour development children do not travel if left to themselves. And her insistence that there be no appeal to our 800 years of common law wisdom and precedent clearly shows a lemming-like desire to jump off the edge into the great unknown of social experimentation.

May the rest of Parliament come to its senses and vote Bradford’s subversive Bill into oblivion where it belongs.
 

Family Integrity #184 -- Bradford Bill will result in Children Reporting Parents

Family Integrity #184 -- Bradford Bill will result in Children Reporting Parents
5 March 2007

Here's a great press release from Family First.

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



MEDIA RELEASE
5 MARCH 2007

Bradford 'Anti-smacking' Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they don't like parental discipline and correction.


Prominent QC Peter McKenzie, in his opinion released last week, highlights this when he says "complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges."


"And this is consistent with international experience," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.


Supt Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London and Britain's most senior black policeman said at the weekend(1) that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge. He said that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption. He made these comments during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men.


In Sweden (where smacking was banned in 1979), the Nordic Committee for Human Rights says(2) "Children have been informed of their rights and so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents in the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police...When the children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but they are held to their stories - without any consideration of the damages that the children themselves incur."


"The resentment that the parents feel towards their children whose unacceptable behaviour was the direct cause of the charges against the parents, has resulted in the loss of normal, loving parental guidance for these children. The guilt felt by the children has also seriously damaged the parent/child relationship." (cases in detail below)


Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass Sue Bradford's bill, it will only increase the likelihood of disgruntled children making complaints against their parents because of resentment against correction, 'time out', or denial of privileges.


"This will pit children against their parents, and will place parents under extreme pressure," says Mr McCoskrie. "This would be a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. It is already happening in NZ, with the recent example of a teenager effectively 'divorcing' her parent because she didn't like the family rules."


In an attempt to protect children from the small minority of parents who are obviously unsuitable to hold the responsibilities of parenting, we are steam-rolling good parents who deserve the backing of the state - not undermining and potentially criminalising.


Mr McCoskrie says that a child's rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture, protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been shifted from simply protecting vulnerable children to granting them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.


ENDS


(1) A smack can keep children from crime says police leader - Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 07
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml  
(2) http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm  

For more information contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

SWEDISH CASES (in detail)

Teacher case - (B 2637/92 Gothenburg District Court)

In September 1992 a teacher was convicted and fined for having maltreated his 12 year-old son. The parents - both intellectuals - had made certain rules as regards the tidying of the children's rooms and watching the TV. The children were not allowed to watch TV all evening, and their TV-time was restricted to 2 hours per evening including playing computer games.

On April 9, the father told his son to turn off the tv and empty the garbage. The boy refused to comply, so his father turned off the tv, removed the boy bodily from the sofa, put the garbage bag in his hand and shoved him towards the door. The boy cried and the following day he went to the police and reported being beaten and kicked - that he had been maltreated by his father.

The boy informed his father that he had reported him to the police, and the father explained what the consequences could be. The boy rushed off to the police station to withdraw his statement but instead, that resulted in the father also being charged for "interfering in due process".


The Pre-school teacher case - (B 5050/92 Gothenburg District Court)

A young Finnish pre-school teacher was accused of maltreating her 12 year old daughter who always kept on stealing and running away from home. The mother and daughter have been living in Sweden for 6 years and the child was emotionally disturbed because of alleged sexual abuse from her father (the parents divorced before mother and daughter moved to Sweden).

Once when the girl had run away from home she was taken care of by the police and the social authorities in Falköping. The girl then said that she was afraid to return home because her mother would be angry with her for having run off once again, that her mother would perhaps smack her.

The policeman then advised the girl of her rights according to the law, and that her mother was not allowed to even lay a finger on her - only talk to her. She was also encouraged to go to the police and report her mother if ever she should lay hands on her.

A few weeks later, the girl ran off once again and when she finally returned home late that night she was very provocative. Her mother became angry and physically punished her. The girl went to the police the next morning and filed charges against her mother.

The mother was found guilty of maltreatment.



The Hälsingborg Case - (Order of summary punishment (Strafföreläggande) 1252-882-84)

Hälsingborgs District Attorney issued an order of summary punishment on May 23, 1984 against a Swedish father for physically punishing his 12 year old.

The boy's friends used to call the family's telephone so often that the parents decided to get a secret number. The boy was told not to give the number to his friends. On April 27, 1984, when a call came for the boy, his father accused him of having given the new telephone number to his friends.

When the boy denied doing this, his father accused him of lying and physically punished him. His mother saw what had happened and instructed the boy to report his father to the police. The family then sat down to dinner and an hour later the boy went to the police and reported his father.

The mother was interrogated by the police on May 14, 1984. The police asked her if she had been aware of the consequences of a report to the police. She replied: "I wasn't, but I thought that the police would talk to Dad, and give him a warning so that he wouldn't do it again. If we had known that it would go as far as this, we would never have reported the incident. It would have remained within the family."
 

Family Integrity #183 -- Fifth Press Release Ideas

Family Integrity #183 -- Fifth Press Release Ideas
3 March 2007

Dear Friends,

This is the 5th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls  
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,

And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at:
www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.

Also check out this site to help your lobbying efforts:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/  
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



Please Enlighten Us, Sue

Sue Bradford is doing as she promised: resorting to tooth and nail instead of logic and reasoned debate to defend her indefencible Bill to subvert parental duties toward their chidlren. She criticises Lawyers, QCs no less, for opinions she agrees are possible. She admits that lawyers will find this Bill a gold mine, but that somehow the trauma and crippling expense to families as they agonise through the process of being investigated, charged and then defended for taking a child to time out because the parents hoped to correct the chid is all going to be worth it.

Worth it to whom, Sue?

She admits that assault and child abuse are already illegal, but then says the "correction" of Section 59 must be redefined as abuse. When is she going to enlighten us: what is there about a parent correcting a child's bad behaviour that she is so violently and vehemently against?

She also routinely refers to parents, acquitted by juries, as "severely beating their children". Not a shred of evidence is offered to support this outrageous claim, which clearly condemns our entire justice system, except to point to cases in which she was not privy to the details, and criticises the findings of juries made up of 12 of her peers because they did not agree with her opinion. Let's remember the juries' findings are based on reviewing the facts in excruciating detail while Bradford's opinions are formed from sensational newspaper reports embellished with her own peculiar ideology.

Oh, yes, she also theorises, again offering not a shred of evidence, that the Police routinely overlook real cases of child abuse that come to their notice because they know they'll be dismissed under Section 59. Again, she clearly takes pleasure, as she has always done in her past, in castigating and denigrating the integrity and intelligence of New Zealand's Police Force.
 

Family Integrity #182 -- Good Questions that need answers

Family Integrity #182 -- Good Questions that need answers
3 March 2007

Good Questions that need answers!

Feel free to use the press releases I'm sending any way you like. I already send them out to all the big and many small papers, but I don't know all the little local ones. So simply forwarding it to your local weekly advertiser would be a good idea.

As letters to the Editors, please feel free to use the ideas in these press releases as your own, cut and paste as you like, modify, edit, add more ideas....don't feel you need to quote the source. But do know that the more letters opposing this Bill that are received by the MPs and Letters to Editors, the more they are going to be influenced to vote against this terrible 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: Ma
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:03 PM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: Re: Family Integrity #180 -- Something to consider


Dear Craig,
Thanks for the initiative! Done! Also a question re those press releases. Are you looking for us to put direct copies of them into our local papers? I'm getting quite familiar with emailing MPs now, so I'm fine with cutting bits out of yours so they keep getting the same message from loads of us, it's just the nespaper bit that I'm on shaky ground - procedure etc. Is it fine to just put one of yours in, with a note at the beginning to say something like ' Family Integrity's Craig Smith recently said in a press release...' ?If they're happy to publish, then do as a series over a few issues?
Sorry, I know you're very busy, but any tips appreciated.
Warm regards,
Ma
 

Family Integrity #181 -- Critique of Bradford's anti-section 59

Family Integrity #181 -- Critique of Bradford's anti-section 59
Bill now on YouTube

Greetings

Five video clips just posted on YouTube explaining and critiquing in a
straight up way, Bradford's assault on New Zealand families.

36 minutes viewing in all.

Entitled 'Criminalising Parents NZ Style', they can be found in order at:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjklj6yZGPk
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk45JHr7aBY
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olo4uWHPMyE
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxV0farmys
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfmUhGwtE9w
 
Please pass this email on far and wide.

Thanks

Renton Maclachlan
Craig Smith
 

Family Integrity #180 -- Something to consider

Family Integrity #180 -- Something to consider

Dear Friends,

We need to convince the MPs to vote Bradford's Bill down. Please consider the following suggested course of action. It would only take a moment or two.

New Zealand First, as a party, is being silly. All 7 NZFirst MPs are List Candidates. To survive in the next election they'll need something to offer the voters.

If they opposed Bradford's Bill as a block, rather than split as they are at present, and put themselves forward as the party solidly against this Bill, I reckon 80% of NZers would love them for doing so.

Their votes could easily make the difference between success and failure of this Bill.

At present here is where the NZ First MPs are at:

For the Bill:
Hon Brian Donnelly
Doug Woolerton
Barbara Stewart

Against the Bill:
Rt Hon Winston
Ron Mark
Pita Paraone
Peter Brown


Here are all their email addresses, ready for you to copy and paste:

brian.donnelly@parliament.govt.nz; doug.woolerton@parliament.govt.nz; barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz; winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz; ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz; pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz; peter.brown@parliament.govt.nz


The suggested action is to send the following email to each of the NZFirst MPs above (as per instructions below) and then get everyone else you can to send the same email to these same MPs. (Only if you agree with the sentiments expressed in this email, of course.) Please understand the tactics here: it is simply known as Politics.

So, forward this email in its entirety to all your friends.

Then, to send the email message below to the NZFirst MPs listed above, do the following:

1. copy and paste the email below into a fresh new email message form (that is, DON'T just hit the reply or forward buttons)
2. put your name at the bottom under "Regards"
3. copy and paste the seven email addresses above into the "To:" box at the top of the message form
4. hit the "send" button. Piece of cake.

Here's the email:





Dear NZ First MPs,

Parliament needs decisive leaders, not tyrants. The New Zealand public is looking for such leaders, who will listen to them, rather than heedlessly walk over the top of them.

I am sure that if NZ First as a Party, and if the Rt Hon Winston Peters as the Leader were to now stand up and declare your united opposition to this grossly intrusive and subversive Bill of Sue Bradfords to repeal/rewrite Section 59, a good 80% or
more of NZ voters would line up right behind you and support your sensible leadership and your party of sanity.

However, if any one of you NZ First MPs votes in favour of Bradford's Bill to repeal/rewrite Section 59, I promise you there is no way I will vote for NZ First with either my electorate or my party vote at the next election. Sorry, but I feel strongly about this. It is far too serious an issue.

This is how NZ First can secure its future -- or its demise -- on the New Zealand political landscape.

Regards,
 

Family Integrity #179 -- Fourth Press Release Ideas

Dear Friends,

This is the 4th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).  
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,

These releases are being read! Garth George wrote an excellent article in the NZ Herald about Section 59 and quoted yours truly from one of these press releases! See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10426342&ref=emailfriend  

And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at
www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.

Also check out this site to help your lobbying efforts:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/  

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



When I rang the Minister of Justice Mark Burton to ask about the “plank of wood” he mentioned in his speech debating Bradford’s Bill to subvert all parental authority by criminalizing the use of any force to correct their own children, I was put on to his PA Andrian Fryer. Burton had said Section 59 had been used to justify beatings with such implements. So could he give me any details about the case where the “plank of wood” was used? Well, no he couldn’t. It may have been a reference to the case in Hawkes Bay where a piece of kindling, the size of a standard wooden spoon was used. But Mr Fryer really couldn’t say. I asked if he was aware that in that case the bruising referred to was caused by a roller blade accident and that the acquittal was not, in fact, based on an appeal to Section 59? Mr Fryer couln’t say.

Did it concern Mr Fryer or the Minister that such careless use of language and disregard for the accuracy of the facts opened the Minister of Justice to accusations of deceit? Mr Fryer couldn’t say. It didn’t matter anyway, he insisted, for it didn’t change the Government’s stand that the use of an implement for correcting a child was unacceptable.

Mr Fryer made it clear that the civil Government in Parliament has taken a stand on this Bill and will drive it through. As so many others have pointed out, it doesn’t appear to matter one bit to this Government that the majority of the population object: this Government intends to tell parents that they must not correct their children with any use of force………which means they cannot correct them at all, for to correct means at the very least to force the parent’s will upon the child.

Governments have jurisdictions, areas wherein they wield legitimate authority. The Civil Government of Parliament is one government. Then we have local governments, workplace governments, church governments, the governments of individual families and finally the self-government of each mature person. Each of these governments has its own jurisdiction: there is a jurisdiction of the state, a jurisdiction of the church, a jurisdiction of the family, and so on. There is a bit of overlap at the edges, but it is the characteristic of a free society that each of these governments is free to wield its legitimate authority within its own jurisdiction without undue interventions from the other governments. Parliament, or what we usually call the Government with a capital “G”, is only one government among many.

The problem with Bradford’s Bill is that it is a naked grab by the central Government of the state of New Zealand to take over the jurisdiction of each individual family government. There is already a legitimate jurisdiction of the state to intervene into the government of the family, and that is when the family experiences gross dysfunction. Likewise, when the self-government of the individual breaks down and he or she becomes a lawbreaker, again the state Government has then a legitimate jurisdiction to intervene into the government of the individual with Police arrest.

Bradford’s Bill is a clumsy attempt to illegitimately extend the jurisdiction of the state into the jurisdiction of every healthy family and to take over the way each family governs its children. This is not the way of state governments in free and democratic countries. Such moves are antithetical to the whole concept of democracy.

Significantly, however, this is the way of totalitarian state governments, such as the communist regimes of Cuba or the old USSR and East Europe before their collapse in 1989. If we in New Zealand do not want to fall into that kind of political and social slavery, we must reject Bradford’s Bill and take the government of the family back away from the state.
 




 

Equipping parents to do battle to protect the integrity of their family