Join Us

New form

Press Release
For Immediate Distribution

It appears John Key of National and Bradford of the Greens are meeting
on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp
parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable
force to correct your own children.

Key appears to have swallowed Bradford's first and foremost piece of
propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.

Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It
is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible,
understood by each succeeding generation according to the social
attitudes of the times, not like Bradford's proposed re-write of
Section 59, confused by too many undefined words and concepts.

If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal
with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of
control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse:
household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships,
welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of
compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?

In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent's use of
force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and
repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a
desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate,
get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries
of 12 of her peers determined to be "reasonable force." We now see,
from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that
it is not the "reasonable force" to which Bradford objects, for it is
still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct
their own children.

Section 59 doesn't promote abuse and violence toward children: it is
one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it
only allows parents to use "reasonable force" and then only "by way of
correction". When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for
using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme
perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to
communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by
the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way
of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned
parents in particular, call this for what it is -- telling lies -- and
do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.

I trust that Key at least, if not every reporter in the country, will
demand that Bradford answer the following mysteries about her ridiculous
anti-parent, anti-family Bill (both the present Section 59 and the
Proposed Re-write are included below for reference):

Number One: What Is Meant by Correction?
A. Define "Correction" as it is used in this Bill.

B. Does the forbidden purpose of "Correction" include "discipline"?

C. Does it include "training"?

D. Does it include "chastisement"?

E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use
"reasonable force in the circumstances" to discipline, train or
chastise their children?

F. Will Bradford's definition of "correction" obviously fall outside
of what most parents would say is "incidental to good care and
parenting"? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what
constitutes "good care and parenting"?


Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Sub-Sections 1a
through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to
accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way
as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ
smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?

B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as
it does in the present Section 59?

C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either
smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the
statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?


Number Three: What is Wrong with Correcting Children?
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the
"reasonable force in the circumstances" idea as it exists both in the
present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it
true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct
their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford
objects so strongly?

B. Please clarify: what is it about using "reasonable force" when it
is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in
Bradford's thinking that it must be legislated against when this same
"reasonable force" can be used in the multitude of other circumstances
allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?

C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used
by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: "As long as
the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child's act of
harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as
long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force
is used on the child AFTER the child's act of harm or crime or
disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms
of correction and is therefore illegal."

D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view
"correction" (and "discipline" and "training" and "chastisement") of
children as integral parts of "performing the normal daily tasks that
are incidental to good care and parenting"? How does Bradford intend
for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such
parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as
part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her
as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?


Number Four: Isn't "Reasonable Force" still "Reasonable Force"?
Bradford has consistently said that the "reasonable force for the
purpose of correction" provision of the current Section 59 has allowed
violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat
their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving
welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the
"reasonable force" provision in any way except to forbid it for the
purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude
of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in
any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with
horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do
it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive
behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from
letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely
the same; the only difference is that "correction" is now forbidden,
but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of
the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow
for more use of force against children, not less.


Number Five: So If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Parents Are
Automatically Guilty?
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over
Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether
a parent's use of force was preventative or corrective that the
corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that,
contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only
guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be
required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?

B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing
apples from the neighbour's tree and slap his hand as he picks another
one so that he doen't actually detach it, and confesses he was
stealing without the neighbour's permission, this is justified by
Sub-Section 1b?

C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the
neighbour's, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back
the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part
of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force
used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective,
Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified
and I'd be guilty of assault?

D. If, after marching him to the neighbour's and forcing him to give
the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and
offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he
didn't was not going to do either, I said he'd be banned from any TV,
Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he
did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for
$3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to
fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point
I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later
give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic
entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I
required of him in front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of
this. During the next week there were four instances where I had
physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce
the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to
correct my son's actions and their downstream implications, the force
I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2,
is this not correct?


Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and...every person in the
place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of
correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances.


The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 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 disuptive 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).



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
 

21 APRIL 2007 - Family First - Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00276.htm

Section 59
MEDIA RELEASE
21 APRIL 2007

Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59

Three cases of assaults on children over the past fortnight have proved that the claim that section 59 is protecting child abusers is totally false.



A Hawkes Bay woman faces a jail term for taking to her son with a wooden spoon and leaving him with 4cm welts. A Tauranga mother who admitted she slapped her 10-year-old daughter about the face and body at least five times to discipline her for back-chatting has also been convicted of assault.



And yesterday, an Invercargill mother was convicted of assault of a child after she used the child's folder to hit him across the arms and used her open hand to hit him across the buttocks. The boy received extensive bruising to his hands, arms, lower buttocks and upper thighs.



“Section 59 did not protect these parents – and nor should it have,” says National Director Bob McCoskrie. “But what these cases do show is that the current law is working.”



“These assaults are quite obviously not reasonable – and are quite different to light smacks which over 80% of NZ’ers support as being appropriate for the parental guidance and correction of children. Kiwis understand the difference between reasonable correction of a child and child abuse.”



Mr McCoskrie says these cases prove it is time to ditch the Bradford ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and start tackling the real causes of child abuse – family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress.



“A ban on smacking is simply a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.


ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

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

20 April 2007 - The Dominion Post - Smacked kids hurt animals says MP

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4031837a6000.html

Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
MARTIN KAY - The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007



Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.


In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader - who is in coalition with Labour - cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.

About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as "spanking, slapping or hitting".

Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which removes the statutory "reasonable force" defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.

Mr Anderton said the study showed that people "emotionally damaged through violence" were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.

His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used - which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates - was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research "wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was".

Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture.

"What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren't smacked."

Supporters of Ms Bradford's bill say it will remove the protection for parents who thrash their children. Opponents say it will criminalise good mothers and fathers.

The bill is set to pass comfortably with support from Labour, the Maori Party, National MP Katherine Rich, NZ First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne.
 

19 April 2007 - Libertarianz Party - Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00252.htm

Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
Thursday, 19 April 2007, 2:42 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
"It is heartening to see John Key take a stand on the anti-smacking bill by refusing to meet with Sue Bradford. But what he hopes to gain by a wording change to the bill is unclear as we already have legislation outlawing assault on children," said Peter Osborne, Libertarianz Social Welfare Spokesman. "Then again, changing the wording to the bill will also allow John Key to do what he does best; compromise and fence sitting."

He says, "The only good thing to come from the anti-smacking bill is that it has shown us what bare faced liars Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are. Prior to the public outcry both Clark and Bradford were clear that this bill outlawed smacking of any kind. When they realised the unpopularity of their interference into our lives they both changed their spin. Of course the bill remains clear: the Police will be forced to arrest good, loving parents for smacking their children."

Mr Osborne continues, "People must question why, with the ever increasing political interference into our private lives, assaults and murders of children are becoming more vicious and common! Libertarianz understands only too well that it is because of the insidious New Zealand welfare system. When people are paid systematically to do nothing; to aspire to nothing, their lives are altered from a future of possibilities and aspirations to an easy option of subsidised nothingness. In the guise of 'helping' people, politicians have created a system which brings out the worst in many."

In conclusion Osborne says, "Libertarianz believes that if people are left to peacefully live without the burdens and interference of the state then human resourcefulness will allow everyone the opportunity to improve their lives and to strive for the best within themselves. What a wonderful environment that would be for raising children! Our constitution would ensure that the Bradfords, Clarks and Keys of this world would have no power to erode the freedom that is ours by right."

"It's Enough to Make you Vote Libertarianz!"

ENDS
 

19 April 2007 - Scoop coverage of Section 59

Here is a summary of some press releases this year in relation to Section 59.


Scoop Full Coverage: Section 59 - Ouch!
Friday, 23 February 2007, 7:33 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00195.htm



Scoop Full Coverage of Anti-Smacking Bill
Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 11:13 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00231.htm



Full Coverage (Part2) of Section 59 Bill
Thursday, 29 March 2007, 9:09 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm
 

18 April 2007 - Newstalk - Key looks for smacking compromise

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114850

Key looks for smacking compromise
18/04/2007 16:23:00

Newstalk ZBs Larry Williams speaks with National leader John Key about his bottom-line on the anti-smacking bill.

Listen in the link above
 

18 April 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0704/S00310.htm

Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key

Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party


National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.

"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.

"The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they've got a major problem with the current wording."

Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.

"But there's no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.

"That is the first step towards finding some common ground."

Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won't criminalise parents.

"If Labour really believes that 'light smacking for the purposes of correction' will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to 'lightly smack for the purposes of correction'.

"The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.

"So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let's get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.

"For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table."

ENDS
 

17 April 2007 - Stuff - Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4029423a11.html

Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
by MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA | Tuesday, 17 April 2007

Green Party MP Sue Bradford has welcomed National leader John Key's call to get together to talk about her bill to change the law around smacking.

However the Government response was cooler.

In a speech today Mr Key said he would like to talk to Prime Minister Helen Clark and Ms Bradford about her controversial member's bill.

The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals for smacking children but supporters say the aim it will only stop people using the defence for serious assaults against children.

Mr Key said most MPs wanted:


**To prevent violence against children being protected by the defence of reasonable force;

**not to criminalise good parents who occasionally gave their children a light smack;

**to lower the threshold for what was considered acceptable physical discipline.
Ms Bradford said she was "absolutely delighted" Mr Key saw the issue as important.

"I welcome very much his offer to play a constructive role in the debate," she said.

She made her own offers – to talk to National's caucus and to organise a meeting for Mr Key, herself and a few groups like Plunket, Barnardos, Save the children and Unicef.

"I'd like to do both those things, I'd like to make that offer back to Mr Key," she said.

Ms Bradford said she was willing to move on her position "if there's anywhere to move" but would not accept defining a level of violence against children.

National MP Chester Borrows previously proposed an amendment to allow parents to use limited force to correct their children.

Ms Bradford said she could not see why there needed to be any defence in the law for assaults against children.

"I want to remove the defence of reasonable force which allows people a defence when they assault their children that is not available when they assault other adults. That is different from creating a new offence of smacking which is what my opponents have painted this as."

Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope said Mr Key's comments about where he stood on the issue were confusing and vague; "but do appear to show that his position now mirrors that of the Government".

Mr Benson-Pope said Mr Key and National had scaremongered about the bill rather than properly debate it.

"I want to assure John Key that the Government would not support any measure that would criminalise good parents," he said.

"It's now up to John Key to put his money where his mouth is and prove to the country that he and his party are serious about addressing child abuse in New Zealand, and that it's not just another case of him shifting his position to suit the audience and trying to get back into the news."

United Future leader Peter Dunne said Mr Key's call for multi-party talks was sensible.

"A common ground discussion between parties might just be able to bring together a package that can gain the support of the vast majority of Parliament and I, for one, would be keen to be involved in such a process," he said.

Mr Dunne said the talks should be for parties, not lobby groups, and the bill put off until they were held.

Debate on the bill is to be held on May 2. At this point it has the numbers to pass.

Mr Key later said that he would take Ms Bradford up on both her offers.

"If there's some common ground that would be a very positive step forward."

Mr Benson-Pope said he was willing to meet and Mr Key said he would contact him to arrange a meeting.

Mr Key did not accept the criticism that his comments were confusing.

"I think they were extremely clear – we spelled out the three points," he said.

"I think it's an indisputable fact that the law will make criminals of parents that lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction – something that both Labour and the Greens publicly say they don't want to happen."

Mr Key said the bill had to change and National was happy to work with Labour and the Greens on that.
 

17 April 2007 - Family Integrity #223 -- Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases

17 April 2007 - Family Integrity #223 -- Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases


Greetings all,

Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.

The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the horse crop as their “poster girl” to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be: because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently “let off” by the courts when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.

This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.

First, the pro-repeal lobby (Bradford and her mates) only ever look at the actions of the parents toward the child: in this case, the mum gave the boy six of the best with an 18 inch bamboo pot-plant stake and later two or three strokes with the riding crop. They do not look at the wider context of family history, events leading to the corrective action, the results, etc. (The jury did…that’s why she was acquitted so quickly.) We all would be horrified to hear of a parent striking a child in this way FOR NO REASON. So Bradford and Kiro and Clark and Edridge et al all play on this and always completely ignore the context of the disciplinary actions. One must suppose that to them, whatever the child has done can in no way justify a disciplinary smack, not ever, not for any reason, no matter how light the smack, no matter how horrible and damaging the child’s actions, no matter how reasonable the force used. This is precisely the tact taken by the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child in a comment on this issue they published in June last year (see http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo). This is a modern philosophy that has very little support or currency among parents anywhere in the world. That is certainly what Labour and the Greens are finding out here: 85% of Kiwis do not agree with a ban on smacking children for corrective purposes as part of the parenting tool kit.

Second, if the Swedish experiment is any indication as to why this philosophy is pushed so vehemently by virtually ALL government departments and virtually ALL so-called child and family welfare groups (virtually ALL of whom are also heavily funded by the state), it is because this philosophy CAUSES family dysfunction. As family dysfunction increases, so does social dysfunction. A chorus goes up, “Why doesn’t somebody DO something?” Up step the state agencies and those groups funded by the state: social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers plus all their secretaries and office staff have vested interests in seeing the dysfunction continue and increase, for it means more money for them. Such bureaucracies ALWAYS tend to grow, for their focus very quickly becomes one of self-preservation rather than working themselves out of a job by finding permanent solutions to the social problems they were supposedly set up to solve.

Third, Bradford and her mates are strongly implying that they think the juries in such trials, 12 of their peers, are thick as bricks or somehow otherwise intellectually deficient and unable to tell the difference between “reasonable force to correct” and “abuse”. Or they are simply saying they don’t like the decision made by the juries. These things are implied, but what Bradford and co are really trying to do is impose their own philosophy on everyone else by saying that juries should not have to decide such things, that the law should always clearly rule any use of force, regardless of how light or reasonable, outside the law if that force is used for the purpose of correction. What Bradford has never told us is why she so hates the perfectly natural idea, one practised for thousands of years, of parents correcting their children.

Fourth, the one group solidly against this bill is parents. Contrary to what Bradford and Kiro claim, parents are not clamouring for the “right” to beat their children…how ridiculous can you get, Bradford. Parents are proclaiming that they have natural duties and responsibilities toward their children and resent the state - especially a radically feminist and childless Prime Minister and an even more radically feminist Sue Bradford of the highly dysfunctional lifestyle track record - parents resent the state and thoroughly unqualified people like Clark and Bradford interposing themselves between parents and their children claiming they have to protect the child’s rights from being denied and trampled on by the parents.

This denigration and bullying of parents by the state has to stop. Only parents will ever love and be as committed to their children as they routinely are…certainly Clark and Bradford and state social workers have little to offer children in the areas of love and commitment. Parents also have most to lose by this legislation: their own children, their own family harmony and peace, their own authority within their own families and over their own children to correct, train and discipline using any degree of reasonable force. This Bill is clear evidence of the state claiming for itself the posterity of us all, our children, and wanting the best shot at determining the future by indoctrinating our children in its schools and allowing only its agents (police and social workers), not the parents, to force them to behave in certain ways approved by the state.


The Present Debate
I’ve cut and pasted three items below.

The first is a blog from July last year revealing details of a pending court case which will not happen until November 2007 apparently. This involves the Timaru riding crop lady and an older son in a separate incident in which she is again being charged with assault.

The second item is a news story from last Friday about this very court case. Note how different the two accounts are. The first apparently is based on a chat with the Timaru lady herself, the second is based on the testimony of the son.

The third item is one blogger’s go at knitting the two together….and this is the scary part: it looks as if the Police and the Justice System are being manipulated by CYFS and maybe the Labour-led Government for the purely pragmatic ends of achieving their political social-engineering agenda. Truth and justice are quite possibly being trampled upon for the higher “good” that our “ever-so-wise” and “benevolent” leaders in Parliament have determined we need, even though we are apparently too thick to see it for ourselves.

There is clearly something going on with this Bill, for Labour has revealed that they are particularly committed to it and prepared to take a lot of very damaging hits (sustained criticism from media, disapproval of voters, the embarrassment of trying to push it through urgency and then trying - and failing - to make it a Government Bill) if only they can secure its passage into law.

And here is where the debate has gone off topic: smacking is a peripheral issue. This bill will criminalise parents using reasonable force - any force - to correct their children, thus prohibiting the most basic expression of their authority: the use of reasonable force. If you have no ability to use force, you have no authority, for you cannot enforce anything. Police and the courts would be reduced to making suggestions only if they could not use force (arrest, fines, imprisonment) to enforce the laws. The use of force is basic and inseparable from authority.

In addition, since the word “correct” is not defined in NZ law, it can be made to mean a huge range of things including any attempt by parents to train or discipline or improve or coach their children. Why is Bradford so vehemently against parents doing such things? And forbidding the use of any reasonable force is not just a ban on smacking…it is totally illogical to ban what is reasonable, and since “reasonable force” is also undefined in law, it can surely apply to any effort by the parents to impose, force, their will upon the child, however they might attempt to do this: time out, restrain, threaten, withhold affection or privileges, grounding, argue, yell and scream, humiliate, emotionally manipulate, negotiate, demand, appeal to conscience or religion or tradition or culture, etc. This effectively forbids any imposition of parental requirements or prohibitions upon children, unless one of two things can be established: the role of parents is to impose their best set of standards and attitudes and understandings upon their children; or the role of parents is to merely care for their children’s physical needs and impose as little moral guidance upon them as possible unless the children have agreed or have given their permission.

Bradford’s Bill appears to be totally committed to that second option. This is precisely what Bradford and Clark mean when they talk about children being given the same rights as adults. Certainly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) is pushing this idea of children being considered as individuals separate from their families, with their own rights which will be proclaimed, defined and defended by the state against those who are most likely to deny the child those rights: the child’s parents.


Conclusion
Anyway, please do not make any judgements about the latest media and blog-land revelations and discussions of the Timaru riding crop lady’s situation: we may well not have the full facts until the end of the year, after the trial. But we will get the facts; and they already promise to be a lot more complicated and involved than we’re likely to read in the media’s sensationalised pulp.

Please also do not assume that we or anyone else is holding the Timaru lady up as a sterling example for us all to follow, encouraging us all to go out and buy a riding crop to have handy. I know she would not wish her life’s story and family context on to anyone else. But do recall that in the original riding crop court case, the jury unanimously acquitted her within one hour of deliberation without her or any other witness saying one word in her defense: the prosecution did all the talking! Many people are striving to clarify the facts of this case (facts that Bradford, Murry Edridge of Barnardos, Kiro, Pillay and others steadfastly and creatively obscure rather than elucidate). They strive to make the facts clear because they feel she is being unfairly, maliciously and unjustly caricatured by the repeal lobby for their own political agendas, and not for the good of her, her family or the many other families whose peace and security and integrity will most definitely be threatened by Bradford’s Bill. And the press demonise her and misreport the facts for the low-life purpose of creating sensational headlines to artificially boost sales.

And don’t forget that the real issue is the state usurping from parents their natural authority over their own children. This will of necessity deliver to the state and its agents the only legal authority to correct children by using any degree of force, these state agents being the police, social workers and to a lesser degree, school teachers. (Though have you heard that in the UK, school teachers have re-gained the authority to use force with children not just in the classroom, but on the streets as well? It is a very logical step in the totalitarian agenda to gain complete control over “our” children since they are increasingly considered to be “the nation’s” children).

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


Item One

http://big-news.blogspot.com/search?q=broke+nose
Saturday, July 01, 2006
son breaks "riding crop" mum's nose

post has been updated 6pm
The woman who was acquitted in court of physically disciplining her 12-year-old son with a riding crop was visited by her six-foot 16-year old son in January. He kicked his stepfather in the head and broke his mothers nose. The last time the mothers nose was boken was when she was assaulted by an ex-husband who was charged with assault. However the police have not laid assault charges against the boy, despite his parents pressing for this.

The mother had access rights after the son was told to live with his father because she was deemed an unsafe parent by Child, Youth and Family, because she disciplined the younger one with a riding crop and a cane.

But this older son is a brat. Since living with his father he has had free access to alcohol and party pills and, according to his mother, has been breaking into cars and has appeared before the youth court on 13 charges.

As well as breaking his mothers nose, and kicking his stepfather in the head with his size 15 shoes (his stepfather has a serious head injury, remember) he repeatedly spat at them both while travelling with them in the car. The stepfather had to physically restrain the boy, and pull him off his mother. He was punching her and repeatedly calling her a f........ arsehole, f..... whore, and a few other things. So she physically disciplined him and his stepfather tied his feet together to stop him from kicking him in the head again, before calling the police, who handcuffed the swearing boy and took him away.

Now, this mother along with her husband is facing an assault charge laid last month after the boy went to CYFS the following week. That is why it is now in the media. Perhaps CYFS, or its supporters, has released information on the case.

More sadly, CYFS Dunedin manager Peter Guest has now stopped the younger sons unsupervised access to his mum specifically because of the charges. He did this just two days before the holidays, without even telling the boy. The boy was going to stay with his mum over the holidays next week. Instead he found out from his mother that he is to stay with his grandmother, who was the approved CYFS caregiver that physically disciplined the boy and gave him Risperdal and Ritalin.

Guest is also trying to take the woman's daughter away from her again. The mother has complained to the police and laid charges of assault against her son but has been told that she has to prove that she was assaulted before the police would do anything. This is despite the fact that CYFS did not have to prove charges against the parent, and that case is before the courts.

Perhaps the ACC claim form for the broken nose may be proof.

Anyone with half a brain can now find out this woman's name through the media,as one paper has named her on the assault charge and then linkedthe two cases together on anohter report - but her name is permanently suppressed by the courts. For obvious reasons I have not provided links to the papers concerned.

Do you think the older boy should be charged with assault?



Item Two

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a10.html
Horsewhip case mum accused of new attack
The Timaru Herald | Friday, 13 April 2007
The woman acquitted of assaulting her son with a cane and horsewhip, in a case cited as a justification for the anti-smacking bill, is to face trial on charges of assaulting another of her sons.
The woman and her husband appeared in Timaru District Court yesterday. After depositions, the man pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure. His wife pleaded not guilty to three charges of assault and one of assault with intent to injure.
Justices of the peace Kevin Dey and Margaret Cosgrove remanded the pair on bail to April 30 for the setting of a trial date.
In May 2005 a Timaru jury found the woman not guilty of two charges of assaulting a son, then aged under 14. She admitted giving him "six of the best" with a cane for misbehaving at school, and striking him three to four times with a horsewhip after an incident in which he waved a baseball bat at her partner.
Yesterday, her teenage son told the court he was punched, kicked and hog-tied by his stepfather after he agreed he had no respect for him.
All the charges arose out of a journey the three made in January last year. The night before the trip, it had been agreed they would leave at 9.30am, but the following morning the man was shouting and swearing because he considered they were running late, even though they were on the road at 9.15.
The man swore at the boy frequently and the boy responded the same way. At one stage his mother suggested he had no respect for the man. When he agreed he did not, he said his mother slapped and punched him in the face at least three times.
A few minutes later, he punched his mother once on the temple. The man stopped the vehicle and got out. The boy got out too, and started walking away. The man punched him with a closed fist. The boy was also kicked in the chest and kidneys.
The man told his wife to get some tape from the vehicle. He bound the boy's arms and taped them to his leg.
The man told his wife to call the police. Instead, she suggested they take the boy to Geraldine police station. It was closed, so they decided to drive to the Timaru station.
The boy managed to call his birth father on his cellphone, but his mother grabbed the phone.
His mouth was filling with blood from his bleeding nose. He spat it out, further angering his stepfather.
The vehicle stopped and the boy ran into the road, in front of a vehicle driven by Geraldine man Colin Hobbs. Mr Hobbs told the court the boy's arms were tied together. There was blood around his nose and mouth.
Mr Hobbs saw the man kick the boy two or three times and then grab him by the scruff of the neck, pulling him toward the vehicle, and put both his knees into the boy's ribcage.
"He was putting everything into it," he said. The woman did nothing to stop the assault.
When Senior Constable Graeme Walker arrived at the scene, all three family members were visibly upset. In an attempt to defuse the situation, he took the boy home and sent the couple on their way.



Item Three

http://big-news.blogspot.com/search/label/riding%20crop
Friday, April 13, 2007
Riding crop mother has her day in court, again

NB this post has been updated
As some people are expecting me to write about the riding crop mum of Timaru (and I wish people would stick to the facts and desist from calling it a horse whip), who was back in court on assault charges, I may as well.

As readers will know, I was a aware of the charges, in fact I blogged about them in July last year. That's how long it has taken to come to court. Public Address blogger Russell Brown criticises my earlier post:
the account of the third-party witness, who has no reason to lie, directly contradicts the account relayed by Dave Crampton on some key points. Hopefully he'll now stop depicting these people as victims of their terrible children and think a bit harder about the violence in this family.
Actually, the account of the witness doesn't contradict my key points. Thats because the witness didn't witness the woman assaulting the boy. Neither did he witness the boy punching his mother in the face and breaking her nose at the start of this whole sorry episode. He witnessed the father assaulting the boy, and that father pleaded guilty to assault, as he should.

What Russell Brown hasn't mentioned is the following, much is (apparently) in the summary of facts but not in the media report he relies on: The teenager (aged 16 or 17) was on an access visit. He punched his mother in the face and broke her nose prior to all this happening, resulting in his mother getting ACC. He was was charged with assault but Police decided not to pursue it and let him off with a formal warning, reasons of which are suppressed. Charges were laid against the mother but police withdrew the charges when they found out what her son had done, but the crown relaid them after what was most probably political and CYF pressures after the boy got his warning.

Furthermore, the man who witnessed the stepfather's assault on the boy has said that the woman didn't exactly do anything to stop the assault - but would you if your nose had just been broken? Russell has criticised the woman, alleging that she is a bad parent for not doing anything to stop the beating, even questioning why she did not call out for her partner to stop. [This has since been refuted in comments by the woman herself].

Russell has criticised the actions of both parents, but not the teenager. Why? I don`t condone the actions of the stepfather either, but if Russell's son was in the care of a former partner or CYFs and came home on an access visit, broke his nose, spat blood in his face, assaulted his partner, kicked him and swore at him, what would he do - give him a hug and play this http://www.amplifier.co.nz/video/17174/welcome_home.html on his stereo?

posted by Dave at 3:52 PM http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/04/riding-crop-mother-has-her-day-in-court.html
 

16 April 2007 - Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill - CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00195.htm
CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks
Monday, 16 April 2007, 4:27 pm
Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill
Press Release Monday April 16th 4pm.

CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks


CIR Petition coordinator Larry Baldock announced today that the petition to force a referendum on the Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill had passed the halfway point towards the required target of 300,000 signatures.

As of today, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill's Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The law allows twelve months to collect the required 300,000 signatures.

"To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this the fastest petition gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act, and needless to say all of us involved are very encouraged by the support we have received from all over the country," he said.


"While the supporters of Sue Bradord's HOME INVASION, ANTI CORRECTION, ANTI-SMACKING Bill continue to argue about the accuracy of all the polls that have been conducted that show an overwhelming majority of opposition to her bill, we can confidently say we are going to be able to require a referendum to be held at the next election. There will be no disputing that result and politicians would be unwise to continue to ignore the voice of those who elected them into parliament," said Mr Baldock.


ENDS
 

13 April 2007 - Ron Law: Section 59 for Dummies

13 April 2007 - Ron Law: Section 59 for Dummies

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00205.htm
For better reading of the charts please go to this link above to read this opinion piece.

Ron Law: Section 59 for Dummies
Friday, 13 April 2007, 10:09 am
Opinion: Ron Law

Section 59 for Dummies: A Critique of Sue Bradford's So-called ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill

By Ron Law
Contrary to popular belief, Sue Bradford's so-called ‘anti-smacking’ Bill has already been defeated by the parliamentary process.

Having been the recipient of numerous "anti ‘anti smacking’" or "anti ‘pro beat your kids’" emails I thought it prudent, as a risk & policy analyst, to look at what all the fuss was about so I could make an informed decision myself.

My first port of call was to the Parliament website to look at the Bill being debated and in Hansard, the transcripts of the debates. What I discovered surprised me and is quite odds with what is being debated in public through the media. On Campbell Live on Monday 2nd April, for example, the nation was told that the Bill before parliament was simply about the repeal of section 59 from the Crimes Act; but is it?

Section 59, one of forty-five defenses in the Crimes Act, is about domestic discipline and states;

s59 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.

Bradford’s short private member’s Bill simply proposed the abolishing of the above section 59. The “Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill” passed its first reading in Parliament in 2005 and was referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee where over 1,700 submissions were received and in response the Bill was totally rewritten.

So what was changed in the Bill referred back to Parliament and now supposedly the subject of intense public debate? Well, actually, nearly everything; the beginning bit, the end bit, and most of the meat or tofu in the sandwich. The public appears to be debating the old version of the Bill that has already been rejected by parliament.

The Bill before parliament now will make it illegal for parents to smack (or use other reasonable force in the circumstances) in order to discipline or correct their child, but it will permit parents to smack their child for a variety of other reasons. So the Bill being debated is not anti-smacking at all… it doesn’t even shift the goal posts, it just turns the goal posts around! It replaces one excuse for smacking with another.


The Bill being debated in parliament now is compared to Sue Bradford’s original ‘anti-smacking’ Bill {{with comments in curly brackets}}.

Bradford's Original Bill
Bill Being Debated By Parliament

Clause 1 Title


This Act is the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2005.
This Act is the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2005.



{{Sue Bradford's wording in the title "(Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline)" was struck out by the Select Committee and replaced with the words "(Substituted Section 59)".}}

Clause 2 Commencement


This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
{{No changes made.}}



Clause 2A Principal Act amended


This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.
{{No changes made.}}

Clause 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.
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

{{Bradford's wording "abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children" was struck out by the select committee and replaced with "make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction."}}

Clause 4 Domestic discipline
Clause 4 New section 59 substituted

Section 59 is repealed.


Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:

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).

{{Bradford’s attempt to prohibit smacking to discipline children by repealing s59 was trumped by a substituted section that appears to allow smacking to control naughty children. The only other clause in the Bill is a technical matter and that was amended too.}}




One set of legal defense criteria needing interpretation by lawyers is to be replaced by another set of legal defense criteria also needing interpretation by lawyers. The new subsection 3 says subsection 2 prevails over subsection 1. So, if there is doubt over whether a parent's smack or use of reasonable force was corrective or preventative or incidental to good care and parenting, the corrective interpretation must prevail. Does this mean that where there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be seen to be guilty of planning correction for the child so must be convicted. Reasonable doubt usually acquits but this Bill means that reasonable doubt might require a conviction. Is there legal precedent for that?

Now
Proposed

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.


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).



Both the current ‘bad’ section 59 and the new ‘good’ section 59 allow the use of force in relation to parenting that is "reasonable in the circumstances."

In other words, if the Prime Minister is to be believed, the Bill, supported by the Government, will still permit parents to ‘thrash and beat’ their children… it’s just that they’ll have to learn how to do that with the goal posts turned around.

The difference is that, as the ‘bad’ law currently stands, force is only able to be used to discipline/correct children, whereas in the proposed ‘good’ law it will be perfectly legal to use force that is reasonable in the circumstances to protect them or to prevent them from being naughty. What is not clear is whether that includes preventing similar naughty behaviour in the future, surely the objective of discipline.

Now:

A smack on a naughty child’s bottom accompanied by the (corrective/discipline) words, "That’s for being naughty" is currently legal, but could soon be illegal.
Soon?:

A smack on a naughty child’s bottom accompanied by the (preventative and ‘incidental to good care and parenting’) words "stop being naughty" is currently illegal, but could soon be OK as that means that you are exercising good care and parenting skills by preventing naughty behaviour.



So, in the New World, Mum Bloggs, has a young child who is pulling items off the shelves, throwing them on the floor, and yelling for a big bag of lollies. Currently, in attempting to save face for herself and the child, she might say to the child, "If you don't stop that naughty behaviour I will smack you when we get home." The child continues being naughty, so Mum bites her lip, cuts short the shopping trip, takes the child home and 'corrects/disciplines' the child with a smack on the bottom. Soon it could be illegal to do that.

However, soon she will be able to say to the child in the supermarket, "I am going to smack you now to prevent you from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence (eg; destruction of property)," and/or, "I am going to smack you to prevent you from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour," and/or “Given that 80 percent of New Zealanders believe that smacking is a tool that a normal parent should be able to use incidental to good care and parenting, I am about to perform a normal parenting task, called smacking, that is intended to stop you being naughty," and smack the child there and then in the heat of the moment.

So, what’s changed? Well, nothing really, except mums and dads will now have to rehearse how they hold their tongue and what they say when they shame their child and themselves in public as a result of the child's offensive or disruptive or criminal behaviour.

Of course, they could always reward their child's offensive or disruptive behaviour and shut them up by giving them those obesity inducing lollies that the child wanted in the first place.

Discipline is a wider concept than physical punishment. Discipline involves the use of a variety of techniques or strategies with the aim of teaching the appropriate way to behave. Physical punishment is one discipline technique. Others include explanations, praise, role-modelling (showing by example), distraction (particularly for young children), withdrawal of treats or privileges and removing the child from the situation (‘time-out’). The use of force in any of these circumstances would now be illegal.

If you send your child to their room for time out for offensive or disruptive behaviour and they refuse, will it be reasonable in the circumstances to take hold of them and forcibly take them to their room? If not, then what protection does the Bill provide if someone then claimed that you had used force?

The defense team in court would argue that you legally used reasonable force in the circumstances to prevent offensive or disruptive behaviour; the prosecution would argue that you illegally used force to discipline or correct offensive or disruptive behaviour.

A question that society needs to address is, “should it be lawful in ANY circumstance to use ANY force (however that might be defined) to manage one's child? If the answer is yes, then surely our parliamentarians should define what is/is not acceptable force.

Perhaps the Prime Minister addressed the core of the issue when, having bagged opponents of the Bill as people wanting to “thrash and beat” their children, she went on to say, "The issue is how to empower police so that they can get a conviction where someone is clearly beating a child." I doubt that even the Prime Minister’s most bitter opponents would disagree with her on that. Let’s state that in the purpose of the Act.

Perhaps the Police aren’t the only ones requiring a Code of Practice; maybe Parents do too! Perhaps parents need guidelines as to what is acceptable/unacceptable force in given circumstances. Let’s say that the use of reasonable force excludes the use of things like belts, canes, hosepipes, jug cords, pieces of wood, horse crops and closed fists. Let’s say that the use of smacking with an open hand is/isn’t acceptable force ‘in the circumstances.’

There are two debates taking place. Parliament is debating one Bill, and the public is debating a Bill already archived in the history books. The fact is that the so-called ‘anti-smacking’ Bill does not repeal section 59 as believed. No one appears to win with the proposed changes; apart from lawyers. The proposed changes don’t even shift the goal posts. All they do is turn the goal posts around and create confusion.


*************
Ron Law - Risk & Policy Analyst, Juderon Associates (Juderon@gmail.com)

 

4 April 2007 - CYFSWATCH NZ - Unchecked, uncorrected - are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?

http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/unchecked-uncorrected-are-you-getting-the-picture-sue-bradford/

Unchecked, uncorrected - are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?

April 4th, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Unchecked, uncorrected - are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?
Wednesday, 04.04.2007, 07:55am (GMT12)


Bad kids make unhealthy adults
5:00AM Wednesday April 04, 2007



Unchecked youthful bad behaviour creates later health risks, a long-term study has discovered. Photo / Greg Bowker

Unchecked antisocial behaviour in childhood leads to poor health in later life, new findings from an internationally-acclaimed long-term New Zealand study show.

The latest results from the Otago University study, which has followed 1000 people since they were born in Dunedin in 1972 and 1973, has found links between antisocial behaviour and poor physical health in adulthood.

The findings, a collaboration between the Dunedin research unit and colleagues at the University of London, appear this week in the American journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

Unit director and paper co-author Professor Richie Poulton said other studies had shown that childhood antisocial behaviour led to adult crime and mental disorder, but this was the first study to show a link to poor adult physical health.

That included injury, sexually transmitted diseases, dental disease, reduced immune function, and an increased risk of heart disease.

The study has tracked 526 males through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

The most recent assessments were done when they were 32.

Boys whose antisocial behaviour persisted into adulthood were more than three times as likely as others to have symptoms of chronic bronchitis and gum disease, 2.9 times more likely to show markers for later heart disease and stroke, and 2.2 times more likely to have the herpes virus.

Males who exhibited high levels of antisocial behaviour as children, but reduced this behaviour in adulthood did not have the same level of poor health, said Professor Poulton.

“You’re talking about kids in the sandpit at preschool fighting and bullying each other, and by 13, these kids are converting cars and by 18, they’re bashing people and raping people.

“That’s the sort of development of this hard core antisocial behaviour.

“It’s early onset and persistent - in order words, there’s a whole bunch of kids who are naughty during childhood but they don’t persist. They grow out of it.

“We’re talking about the 10 per cent of males who are identifiable early, with a whole bunch of risks, and who continue to behave in an antisocial way over their life.”

Professor Poulton said these findings were consistent with other indicators of poor health, such as being in a low socio-economic grouping.

The findings could help the justice and health systems, as reducing antisocial behaviour early could help combat future crime and violence, and reduce the overall health burden.

“You have this hard core of 10 per cent males, and then you’ve got the 25 per cent who exhibit antisocial behaviour during childhood but grow out of it.

“It’s the real tough test - if you want to intervene early, which ones are the ones that are going to go on [to offend in adulthood]? We’re really at the pointy end of that particular research endeavour.”

 

4 April 2007 - Maxim - Think again: family violence

4 April 2007 - Maxim - Think again: family violence

http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/Media/article?id=950

Think again: family violence

John Fox | 4 April 2007


Printed in Joy Magazine, April 2007

The campaign against 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the “anti-smacking Bill”, arouses strong feelings. Those who support the Bill draw attention to New Zealand’s violent culture, and our damningly high rates of child abuse. It is natural to feel that something ought to be done, even if it is just a gesture; a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like the Kahui twins occurring and to tackle our culture of violence. We should, we must, do that. But this Bill will not achieve it.

Ms Bradford and the Prime Minister chime together that the Police will use their discretion and leave good parents and families alone, however, the Bill will still put good loving parents on the wrong side of the law and leave them open to investigations and prosecution. In the process it will undermine parents’ authority over their children.

Child abuse is already illegal. We have laws which punish family violence already. This Bill would criminalise “reasonable” corrective force such as the light smacking used by thousands of Kiwi parents as a disciplinary technique. The best research available, Dr Jane Millichamp’s, suggests that such light smacking (differentiated from beating, or hitting, or child abuse, which is illegal), is not harmful to children, and most Kiwi parents would agree.

The common argument the supporters of the Bill are mustering, is that the Bill will “send a message” that violence against children is unacceptable. But that message is already sent by laws against abuse.

If criminal law “sends a message”, it is about the kind of behaviour we as a society find wrong, unacceptable, and criminal. Things like murder, rape, and child abuse come into that category. By passing the Bill, we would be putting light smacking into the same category, something to be prosecuted in a Court.

Our politicians are right to be concerned about family violence, but they should not be passing a law that they do not want the Police to enforce simply to “send a message”. There are speeches and soap-boxes and press releases and TV cameras for that. Law is for crime, and for behaviour that is harmful and criminal and should be prosecuted.

Further, the Bill would do nothing to address the root causes of child abuse and family violence. UNICEF has said what some of the risk factors for abuse are: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. The Bill does not tackle these risk factors for family violence.

The State and the Police should certainly intervene when there is crime or severe dysfunction, domestic violence and child abuse. There are decisions under the current law that we don’t all agree with, and they show the need to improve and tighten the situations where parents can use discipline, but banning all reasonable correction goes too far and good parents should be left alone.

We are all attracted by a vision of the kind of society we can be; a country without violence, where children are safe. But after we have all agreed on the destination, it comes time to chart the path to take us there. Our MPs could have begun a deeper look at why our society is violent, why families and lives are broken, and the risk factors for family violence. Instead, they are choosing to make thousands of parents into criminals and license interference in good families. That is a wrong turn, the wrong path, and the wrong way.

 

3 April 2007 - theeverlastingman.blogspot - The Thin End of the Wedge?

http://theeverlastingman.blogspot.com/2007/04/thin-end-of-wedge.html

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The Thin End of the Wedge?

It seems the anti-smacking bill that is being fronted by Sue Bradford may end up passing. She certainly seems to think she has the numbers. There are two drawbacks to this though:

1) The failed efforts by Labour to introduce it under urgency, and separately as a government bill, indicate a degree of worry by the ruling cabal. They KNOW it is burning them up. Problem is, it will linger until the budget, and more than likely beyond. What a shame........

2) This bill could potentially do more to undermine the pro-abortion movement than any other form of legislation. How so? First, if Sue Bradford's bill passes, it make all forms of violence and contact against children illegal. Now, in the courts, unborn children have been granted the same rights in law as born children. There has been legal precedent for an individual being prosecuted for deliberately harming an unborn child.

This situation exists because in 1981, in response to a complaint, the Courts declared that the unborn child had no legal statutory rights and it also ruled that the decisions of certifying consultants were immune from the law. Naturally, many thought this unsatisfactory and the issue went to Parliament where the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion bill, embracing nine separate acts, went to a third reading and passed by 40 votes to 26. It was the first legislation in the Western world to re-introduce legal protection for the unborn child. Thus, unborn children in NZ have rights enshrined in law.

If s59 is repealed, be ready for a lawsuit against a DHB or abortion provider, on the grounds of legal precedent and demonstrable violence towards an unborn child. Such court action may or may not succeed, but if it did, watch all hell break loose.

Sue will really be spitting then, because she will be responsible. Good on ya mate!

Posted by MrTips at 4:16 PM

 

2 April 2007 - Society for the Promotion of Community Standards - Exaggeration by 'anti-smacking' bill supporters

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00007.htm

Exaggeration by 'anti-smacking' bill supporters

Monday, 2 April 2007, 10:32 am
Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards
For immediate release ....... Political comment

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

Press Release

2 April 2007

Gross Exaggeration by 'anti-smacking' bill supporters

Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill supporters are guilty of gross exaggeration and deliberate distortion of the known facts in their frantic efforts to convince parents that 'nanny state' knows best when it comes to the discipline of their children. They argue that of the many parents who have been charged with assaulting their children, large numbers have wrongly escaped conviction by successfully appealing to s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Such persons should not have been allowed to "get off the hook" by successfully appealing to the defence of "reasonable force" and juries in such cases got it wrong. They ignore the facts that s. 59 defences for assault are extremely rare (about 1.4 cases per year). The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Helen Clark, has publicly stated that to allow parents facing charges of assault against their child to use a s.59 defense, including cases where juries have acquitted the accused, is "silly" and "ridiculous". Over 80% on New Zealanders, based on consistent poll results, disagree with Helen Clark's position. They do not want s. 59 repealed and they oppose Bradford's flawed bill.

Examples of gross distortion of the facts include the case of a 41-year old Hawkes Bay man, who was acquitted in a jury trial in the Napier District Court in 2001. Cabinet Minister, Hon. Mark Burton, misrepresented this case in his recent speech to parliament supporting Bradford's bill by referring to a man [not named] who was charged with having assaulted a child with a "plank of wood" and got off under a s. 59 defence. This is such a high profile case that anyone who has been following the s. 59 debate would have known that he was referring to the Hawkes Bay man whose 8-year son's bruised bottom was pictured in the Hawkes Bay Herald (now called Hawkes Bay Today). Many of Bradford's supporters have incorrectly referred to the use of a "4 by 2" by the Hawkes Bay man.



The SPCS contacted Mr Burton's office and pointed out to his staff that the Minister, like many of Bradford's bill supporters, has again, not told the truth. Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and her Deputy, the Hon, Michael Cullen, have both incorrectly referred to this case as involving a plank of wood, as have the Green Party and Sue Bradford.

Actually, the man used a small piece of wood, the same dimensions as a child's ruler (dimensions recorded in the Hawkes Bay Herald reportt) NOT a "plank of wood". Neither of the Dominion Post reports (22/02/01 and 21/12/01) refer to a "plank of wood" or a "4 by 2" wooden plank of wood.

The father disciplined the 8-year old boy by smacking him on his clothed bottom, as punishment for stealing $40 off an adult friend of his, and lying about it (the boy denied stealing the money). The boy had been given a number of warnings about stealing and lying by his father, and knew what the consequences would be for his wrongdoing. The father desisted from his smacks when the boy started to cry.

The father had attended a few parenting courses in the Hawkes Bay over the years prior to the incident and had genuinely sought help in the upbringing of this boy who proved quite unruly after being transferred to his care, in the course of an ongoing custody battle for the boy involving his ex-female partner.

Parent-Line, a well-respected child advocacy agency, had advised him at one of these courses that corporal punishment was OK to use when appropriate. He had tried all methods other than corporal punishment to bring to an end the boy's stealing and wilful lying, before the incident of 'assault' for which he was charged by the police. All other methods had been to no avail.

In court he was charged with assault under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act (1961) - :assault against a child under 14 years of age". He was acquitted by a jury of his peers after his lawyer Tony Welsh, was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the true facts he set before the jury. The abrasions over parts of the boy¡¯s buttocks and back had been caused by an accident he had had some days earlier while roller-skating. He had fallen off his skates onto a hard abrasive surface while being dragged on his skates by other children.

It was argued that the distinctive grazing and 'pot marks' revealed in photographs shown to the jury could not have been created by the actions of the father in smacking his boy with a tiny piece of wood. The boy confirmed the cause of the injuries (grazes etc.) as the accident.

The doctor conceded that injuries from the accident would have left the boy's buttocks very vulnerable to further bruising should he have had further force applied to the sensitive areas some days after the accident. The father candidly admitted in court that he had forgotten about the earlier accident and certainly did not appreciate that his son's buttocks would have been so vulnerable. As the boy had been shunted from one parent the other in the course of the custody battle, it appears that the father may not have been privy to all the facts concerning his son's prior injury before the smacking incident.

The father was acquitted by the jury who were quick recognise that the attempt to link the injuries with the level of force used in discipline, as put forward by the prosecution, could not possibly be established without reasonable doubt; and that other events (surrounding the accident) could be established beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused the injuries.

The prosecution case fell apart based on the facts, not on the basis of a s. 59 defence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that there was any intention on the part of the father to deliberately cause injury to his son. Those who knew him the father recognised that he is a very mild-mannered man.

Mr Mark Burton has not told the truth in parliament. However, the continuing misrepresentation of this case serves the interests of Sue Bradford's supporters, to ram home this bill against the wishes of over 80% of New Zealanders.

The Green Party, while admitting to the SPCS that the implement used was not a "plank of wood" or a "4 by 2" have continued to use the distorted shock value of this case to push their flawed bill. They regularly refer to the man using a piece of timber or a hunk of wood to "thrash" and "assault" his boy. What utter piffle! The Prime Minister should be ashamed that she and her Ministers have been telling so many lies about this case.

ENDS
 

2 April 2007 - TV3 - CampbellLive

2 April 2007 - TV3 - CampbellLive

Watch Campbell Live here

The Smacking Debate
The “anti-smacking” bill - anti violence or anti human rights? Who should decide how best to discipline your children? A Campbell Live special.

Part 1
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/261/articleID/24378/Default.aspx?articleID=24378#vidlist24378

Part 2
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/261/articleID/24379/Default.aspx?articleID=24379#vidlist24379

Part 3
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/261/articleID/24380/Default.aspx?articleID=24380#vidlist24380
 

2 April 2007 - tv3 - Gov't will not adopt 'anti-smacking' bill

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/24368/Default.aspx

Gov't will not adopt 'anti-smacking' bill
Mon-02-Apr-2007 5:13pm

In a shock move, the Government says it will not adopt the so-called 'anti-smacking' bill as its own.

Green MP Sue Bradford's bill aims to remove the defence of reasonable force if parents are arrested for assaulting their children.

The Government was controversially considering taking the bill on in order for it to be debated more frequently.

However Parliament goes into recess this Thursday, and the Prime Minister admits they have run out of time to get the bill passed before then.
 

2 April 2007 - Family Integrity - Naked Grab for Power

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00010.htm

Monday, 2 April 2007, 10:42 am
Press Release: Family Integrity

Naked Grab for Power

The Bill to repeal Section 59 is a clumsy and naked grab by the state to usurp the natural authority of parents over their own children.

It forbids parents from correcting their own children! Correction, changing bad behaviour and attitudes and language into good, is a core responsibility and expectation of all parents.

This Bill goes way beyond banning smacking. It removes parental authority. It forbids parents from correcting their own children. Correction of children is then legally authorized only by the agents of the state: the police, teachers, social workers.

This is home and family invasion on a gross scale. It is doing massive political and administrative violence to families. By interposing itself between parents and children, by rendering children's parents impotent, it is doing great psychological and emotional damage to children. When parents are under constant threat of legal action by both Police and CYFS, the stress hampers their parenting and renders it less effective.

This Bill will combine with the law of compulsory school attendance to give the state political machine the major role to legally control and influence the children of this country. Why? Because the Bill transfers from parents to the agents of the state the authority to correct children; and the schooling system serves as the state's major tool of social engineering, a channel for political propaganda.

And once we give the state bureaucrats our children, we might just as well give them everything else...they will come for it soon enough anyway. Once we make the big compromise with regard to our children, nothing else matters any more.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity

ENDS
 

2 April 2007 - tv3 - United Future proposes amendment to 'anti-smacking' bill

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/24362/Default.aspx

United Future proposes amendment to 'anti-smacking' bill

Mon-02-Apr-2007 1:17pm


United Future is proposing an amendment to the smacking bill to ensure parents can still to put a child in time-out without attracting police attention.

The bill by Green MP Sue Bradford would remove the defence of reasonable force if parents are arrested for assaulting their children.

United Future's Gordon Copeland claims the bill will make parents criminals when they simply pick a child up to take them to a 'naughty mat'.

He will put forward the amendment the next time the bill is heard, which may be tomorrow if the Government decides to adopt the legislation as its own.
 

2 April 2007 - The Press - Smacking bill takes a hit

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4013918a1861.html

Smacking bill takes a hit

The Press | Monday, 2 April 2007

By COLIN ESPINER
From feats of foreign policy to hubris at home, such is the lot of a prime minister.


When Helen Clark left for the United States two weeks ago it seemed Sue Bradford's bill removing a legal defence of reasonable force for those charged with assault on a child was set to sail through Parliament.

Now, supporters of the legislation are simply hoping to stagger across the line, battered and bruised by an onslaught of negative public reaction to the so-called anti-smacking bill.

For all the outrage and the lobbying, the thousands of emails and the threatening telephone calls and dark threats against the children of one MP supporting the legislation, the bill is still almost certain to pass.

This is because Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party, New Zealand First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne have made up their minds to vote in favour. If anything the level of vitriol over the bill has made them even more resolute.

But calculations are being done across Parliament about the level of political capital the bill's supporters are using up on this one. The Greens will probably escape unscathed since their voters are firm supporters of the bill anyway. But Labour electorate MPs in particular are really being asked to take one for the team.

How has it all gone so bad so fast? How have Labour and the Greens managed to snatch near-defeat from the jaws of a sound majority?

The simple answer is that the bill's promoters and supporters relaxed after the Maori Party pledged to vote for it, securing its majority through Parliament. They took their eye off the ball and allowed opponents to dub it the anti-smacking bill and claim it would criminalise law-abiding parents.

Of course, this won't happen. Police will use their discretion, as they do at present, and prosecute only those who have committed a serious assault on a child.

Smacking is already illegal - there is simply a defence under Section 59 of the Crimes Act if parents are arrested and charged with assault. That almost never happens, except when a parent is brought before the courts for beating their child with a riding crop or a piece of hose pipe.

Presumably, most people would want such parents prosecuted. However, public trust in the police is not high at the moment, and the public probably view assurances that the police would use their intelligence and judgment on any prosecution under the law change with some suspicion.

There is no point in the Government and its support parties blaming the Opposition for whipping up hysteria over the legislation. It has only itself to blame. The bill should never have been sold as anything more than a minor amendment to the Crimes Act - a sensible, international best-practice move to close a loophole that allowed child abusers to escape prosecution.

Instead, the Government has ended up taking on the vast majority of blue-collar New Zealand; Kiwi battlers with large mortgages, two jobs apiece and a couple of irascible brats who occasionally get a clip around the ear, and who do not want the Labour Government in their living rooms.

It seemed to take Labour a while to realise this. The Government has appeared smug in its conviction that most of the opposition to the bill was coming from a small but noisy minority, which according to Michael Cullen is led by Right-wing fundamentalist Christians who want the right to beat and thrash their children.

There may well be such people at the vanguard of the fight against the bill, but lumping the majority of opponents in with religious zealots is not smart politics and will only inflame voters further.

There are signs the Government is starting to panic. It tried to find enough support to push the bill through under urgency but its support parties were not keen. Now it is talking about making the bill a Government motion to enable it to push it to the top of Parliament's order paper and hasten its progress.

Private member's bills are only debated once a fortnight, which, added to the three-week Easter recess, would push the bill's passage into mid-May.

That's Budget time, and the last thing Labour wants is for its legislative showpiece to be overshadowed by wrangling over the Bradford legislation.

There are risks associated with taking over the bill. Labour's support parties will not like it, seeing it as a bid to subvert the normal democratic process. It also removes any ability for the Government to blame the Greens for the legislation at a later date.

Labour is so closely associated with this bill that making it a Government motion is unlikely to inflict any more damage on it.

The Government appears to have two choices now - persuade Bradford that the political climate has got too hot for this legislation or shove it through quickly. The loss of face associated with a backdown is likely to be too great for Labour, however, and it has probably come too far to turn around now.

Instead, it is pinning its hopes on the public's usually short memory when it comes to unpopular legislation, citing examples such as the anti-smoking legislation, prostitution law reform, and civil unions - all of which were unpopular at the time but now largely accepted.

This might work, but it might not. The difference with these other laws is that the Government was able to specify a group of people who would benefit manifestly from the law change - same-sex couples, prostitutes, non-smokers who wanted to drink in bars. It could also argue that it made no difference to most people.

On the Bradford bill, proponents seem torn between arguing that it will provide shelter for children from abuse and claiming that it will have little impact at all. It is also a topic perfect for political exploitation by National at the next election campaign. It fits neatly into the nanny state folder and plays to the public view that Labour has a social-engineering agenda.

Some senior Labour MPs are privately angry that the party has been forced to take such a hammering over a bill not even in its name at a time when it can ill-afford such hits. They had wanted some clear air to let the dust settle after last year's furore over the pledge card expenditure and the embarrassment over MP Taito Phillip Field.

This week does not look any better for the Government. The long-running commission of inquiry into police conduct is due tomorrow and is expected to be severely critical of police culture. Labour will be worried that it could get caught up in the wider public backwash from such bad news.

Police are also likely to release their decision on whether to lay charges against Field this week. If the MP is charged that will reflect badly on Labour, despite the fact that he is now an independent MP.

For the Government, the Easter recess cannot come fast enough.

 

2 April 2007 - nzherald - I'm not pro-smacking, it's just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows

2 April 2007 - nzherald - I'm not pro-smacking, it's just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows

< a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10432090">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10432090

I'm not pro-smacking, it's just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows
5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007

Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' bill has divided the nation. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Time is against him and the numbers are against him, but National MP Chester Borrows is still hopeful he can muster support for his amendments to Sue Bradford's "anti-smacking" bill.

On Wednesday, the first of Mr Borrows' amendments to the controversial legislation was defeated 63-58. When debate resumes MPs will consider Mr Borrows' next amendment, which seeks to permit a light smack with the hand, causing a trifling and transitory impact.

Ms Bradford's bill, if passed, will strike down a provision under section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows parents to defend themselves from an assault charge by saying they were using reasonable force while disciplining their child.

The debate could resume as early as tomorrow if, as expected, Labour adopts the Green MP's private member's bill as a Government measure. Mr Borrows is hoping two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill will be made to follow the lead of party leader Winston Peters, who opposes it, and that they could bring some Labour MPs along with them.

Mr Borrows' main hope is that Ms Bradford's bill remains her concern rather than the Government's. That would see debate on it resume in early May, during which time he hoped the Maori Party could be convinced to withdraw its support. "I believe in the process; the process is that if you make a strong argument that people may listen," Mr Borrows said.

"It may sound a little naive, but people may decide to find some conviction and decide that if they are going to be a parliamentarian that they weren't sent here to sit on their hands."

The debate has catapulted Mr Borrows, a first-term MP for Wanganui, into the national spotlight. Raised in Nelson, he spent 24 years in the police before becoming a lawyer.

"I have prosecuted people for beating their kids, I have considered section 59 and how that would apply to situations," Mr Borrows said.

"I have probably done more to protect children in this sort of area than anyone else who is in the Parliament, and I don't want to see it trivialised."

Mr Borrows served as a police officer in Auckland, Wellington and Nelson, before becoming a sole charge officer in the South Taranaki town of Patea.

A crucial point in his journey to Parliament was becoming a detective and investigating a series of child abuse cases.

"That experience has been life-changing, and made me want to make things better for victims of crime."

It has also made more hurtful the comments from some supporters of Ms Bradford's bill that by opposing it, Mr Borrows supports the hitting and abusing of children. "I think I've got quite a strong understanding of the nature of abuse, how it works within the heads of victims and how it works in the heads of offenders. I don't like that label, I don't think that's fair."

Mr Borrows, a 48-year-old father of three, also resents any assumption that he supports smacking.

"I have never advocated smacking. I don't want to be labelled the pro-smacker. What I am is the defender of parents and children. This whole debate is about whether or not parents who smack their kid should be liable for prosecution.

"It's not about whether smacking works, and it's not about whether good parents smack and bad parents don't. It's solely about whether parents who do smack their kid should be liable for prosecution."

 

2 April 2007 - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.- Bradford’s Bill Supporters Guilty of Distortion

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00002.htm

radford’s Bill Supporters Guilty of Distortion

Monday, 2 April 2007, 9:42 am
Press Release:
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
30 March 2007

Bradford’s Bill Supporters Guilty of Gross Distortion

MPs supporting Ms Bradford’s flawed anti-smacking bill have been guilty of grossly exaggerating the facts in order to try and convince the New Zealand public that many people, who should have been (in their view) convicted of child abuse, have “got off the hook” by appealing to the defence of “reasonable force” found in section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961).

For example, the case of a 41-year old Hawkes Bay man, who was acquitted in a jury trial in the Napier District Court in 2001 was misrepresented by Cabinet Minister, Hon. Mark Burton, in his speech in parliament supporting Sue Bradford's bill. Mr Burton argued that too many people had successfully used a s. 59 defence to avoid prosecution for child abuse and referred to a man [not named] who was charged with having assaulted a child with a "plank of wood" and got off under a s. 59 defence. This is such a high profile case that anyone who has been following the s. 59 debate would have known that he was referring to the Hawkes Bay man whose 8-year son's bruised bottom was pictured in the Hawkes Bay Herald (now called Hawkes Bay Today).

The SPCS contacted Mr Burton's office and pointed out to his staff that the Minister, like many of Bradford's bill supporters, has again, not told the truth. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, and her Deputy, the Hon, Michael Cullen, have both referred to this case as involving a plank of wood, as have the Green Party and Sue Bradford, despite the fact that they must know the true facts by now.

The man used a small piece of wood, the same dimensions as a child's ruler (dimensions recorded in the Hawkes Bay newspaper report) NOT a “plank of wood”. Neither of the Dominion Post reports (22/02/01 and 21/12/01) refer to a “plank of wood” or a “4 by 2” wooden plank of wood.

The father disciplined the 8-year old boy by smacking him on his clothed bottom, as punishment for stealing $40 off an adult friend of his, and lying about it (the boy denied stealing the money). The boy had been given a number of warnings about stealing and lying by his father, and knew what the consequences would be for his wrongdoing. The father desisted from his smacks when the boy started to cry.

The father had attended a few parenting courses in the Hawkes Bay over the years prior to the incident and had genuinely sought help in the upbringing of this boy who proved quite unruly after being transferred to his care, in the course of an ongoing custody battle for the boy involving his ex-female partner.

Parent-Line, a well-respected child advocacy agency, had advised him at one of these courses that corporal punishment was OK to use when appropriate. He had tried all methods other than corporal punishment to bring to an end the boy's stealing and wilful lying, before the incident of 'assault' for which he was charged by the police. All other methods had been to no avail.

In court he was charged with assault under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act (1961) - :assault against a child under 14 years of age". He was acquitted by a jury of his peers after his lawyer Tony Welsh, was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the true facts he set before the jury. The abrasions over parts of the boy’s buttocks and back had been caused by an accident he had had some days earlier while roller-skating. He had fallen off his skates onto a hard abrasive surface while being dragged on his skates by other children.

It was argued that the distinctive grazing and 'pot marks' revealed in photographs shown to the jury could not have been created by the actions of the father in smacking his boy with a tiny piece of wood. The boy confirmed the cause of the injuries (grazes etc.) as the accident.

The doctor conceded that injuries from the accident would have left the boy's buttocks very vulnerable to further bruising should he have had further force applied to the sensitive areas some days after the accident. The father candidly admitted in court that he had forgotten about the earlier accident and certainly did not appreciate that his son's buttocks would have been so vulnerable. As the boy had been shunted from one parent the other in the course of the custody battle, it appears that the father may not have been privy to all the facts concerning his son's prior injury before the smacking incident.

The father was acquitted by the jury who were quick recognise that the attempt to link the injuries with the level of force used in discipline, as put forward by the prosecution, could not possibly be established without reasonable doubt; and that other events (surrounding the accident) could be established beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused the injuries.

The prosecution case fell apart based on the facts, not on the basis of a s. 59 defence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that there was any intention on the part of the father to deliberately cause injury to his son. Those who knew him the father recognised that he is a very mild-mannered man.

Mr Mark Burton has not told the truth in parliament. However, the continuing misrepresentation of this case serves the interests of Sue Bradford's supporters, to ram home this bill against the wishes of over 80% of New Zealanders.

The Green Party, while admitting that the implement used was not a "plank of wood" or a "4 by 2" have continued to use the distorted shock value of this case to push their flawed bill. They regularly refer to the man using a piece of timber or a hunk of wood to "thrash" and "assault" his boy. What utter piffle! The Prime Minister should be ashamed that she and her Ministers have been telling so many lies about this case.

ENDS
 

2 April 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Winston's choice: NZ First or Labour First

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0704/S00006.htm

Winston's choice: NZ First or Labour First
Monday, 2 April 2007, 8:07 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Winston's choice: New Zealand First or Labour First

Winston Peters has a very important choice to make on the anti-smacking bill on his return from overseas, says National's Shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee.

 

2 April 2007 - Family Integrity -- Naked Grab for Power

Naked Grab for Power

The Bill to repeal Section 59 is a clumsy and naked grab by the state to usurp the natural authority of parents over their own children.

It forbids parents from correcting their own children! Correction, changing bad behaviour and attitudes and language into good, is a core responsibility and expectation of all parents.

This Bill goes way beyond banning smacking. It removes parental authority. It forbids parents from correcting their own children. Correction of children is then legally authorized only by the agents of the state: the police, teachers, social workers.

This is home and family invasion on a gross scale. It is doing massive political and administrative violence to families. By interposing itself between parents and children, by rendering children’s parents impotent, it is doing great psychological and emotional damage to children. When parents are under constant threat of legal action by both Police and CYFS, the stress hampers their parenting and renders it less effective.

This Bill will combine with the law of compulsory school attendance to give the state political machine the major role to legally control and influence the children of this country. Why? Because the Bill transfers from parents to the agents of the state the authority to correct children; and the schooling system serves as the state’s major tool of social engineering, a channel for political propaganda.

And once we give the state bureaucrats our children, we might just as well give them everything else…they will come for it soon enough anyway. Once we make the big compromise with regard to our children, nothing else matters any more.

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
 

31 March 2007 - nzherald - John Armstrong: Clark whip spurs voter backlash

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10431744

John Armstrong: Clark whip spurs voter backlash

5:00AM Saturday March 31, 2007

As a general rule, prime ministers shouldn't mess with private members' bills. And normally they don't.

Private members' bills which deal with matters of morality are usually big trouble. Prime ministers usually have enough of that heaped on their plates without putting up their hands for more by taking sides on something provoking strong emotions.

To then take the step of wielding prime ministerial authority to direct how MPs should vote on what many people believe should be a conscience issue is to invite a public backlash.

Despite the already overwhelming opposition to the so-called anti-smacking bill initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford, Helen Clark ignored those unwritten rules. Labour is copping the backlash.

National's polling is apparently registering a voter exodus from Labour of astonishing proportions - so astonishing National is querying whether its figures are right.

Labour is confident that once the bill is passed, public fury will subside. The world did not end the day the ban on smoking in bars came into force. Likewise smacking.


But for now things are a mess. National is puzzled why Labour got itself embroiled in something with so little political upside.
It must be presumed Clark ignored the unwritten rules because of her personal conviction that smacking to correct a child's behaviour is wrong and should be outlawed.

It is a principled stance. It would have been more so had she allowed her MPs to exercise their principles through a conscience vote.

But that would likely have condemned Bradford's bill to defeat.

That has been Labour's quandary. Labour may have acted out of principle. It has contrasted Clark's "leadership" on the bill with John Key's "expedience". But saving the bill meant incurring damage. Labour has got caught in a vortex where its attempts to stem the damage have only made things worse for itself.

Leaving the bill to sink or swim on its own would have been the easy option, however.

Given National's lead over Labour in the polls is solidifying and with Key nipping at her heels in the preferred prime minister stakes, Clark must have been tempted to wipe her hands of the measure.

She didn't. In her view, the defence available under section 59 of the Crimes Act for those who beat their children had to be wiped from the statute books. That belief overrode Clark's usual caution and previous intention for Labour to steer clear of legislation which might be mislabelled as "social engineering".

There may also have been an element of defiance; a desire to show that while her minority Government may be constrained, it is not going to be browbeaten into paralysis.

However, Clark also weighed in behind Bradford's bill because the public mistakenly regard it as a Labour bill. Labour was taking all the blame. The Greens were not.

The bill plays beautifully to their constituency. But that has meant the measure never got the intensive political marketing necessary when pushing controversial legislation through Parliament.

A belated selling job has seen Clark and other Labour ministers assuring parents they have nothing to fear from the bill and it is really targeted at altering the behaviour of those who "thrash and beat" their children.

However, as a One News-Colmar Brunton poll vividly illustrated this week, the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe the bill will help curb child abuse.

What the bill might or might not achieve on that front is anyway irrelevant to them. Their fix on the bill is very clear and very simple. The bill would stop them smacking their children when they are being naughty.

That was the bill's original intent. That was modified by a compromise at the select committee stage. The current wording means a child could not be smacked for the purpose of "correction", but "reasonable force" could be used to protect a child from harm, preventing a child from harming others or engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour.

As the Prime Minister keeps saying, the bill does not outlaw smacking. But it does mean parents cannot smack their children simply to discipline them when they are being naughty. Smacking can no longer be used as a behaviour-modification tool.

Much of the public opposition to the bill flows from the feeling "Nanny State" is barging through the front door of the family home.

The bill's proponents can argue such a view is misguided. They can argue the state crept in under the floorboards long ago. They can argue good parents are never going to face prosecution for the occasional mild slap. But it is what people believe that matters in politics, not what politicians think they should believe.

For the great majority, the bill deals with a moral question - whether it is right or wrong to smack a child.

The expectation is that moral issues are conscience issues for Parliament and MPs would have a free vote. But that was dashed by Labour whipping its MPs into line.

Clark insists the Bradford bill falls outside the scope of conscience issues which, to use her description, are confined to legislation dealing with "sex, gambling and booze".

If the bill is about curbing child abuse, it logically follows the Labour caucus should take a collective position on a measure combating a social problem.

But the public does not see it that way. It sees a governing party losing the argument and then whipping its MPs to get the result it wants.

In applying the whip, Labour immediately lost any claim on the moral high ground.

Its subsequent frenzied attempts to get the bill off the political agenda have only compounded public indignation. It flirted with urgency when it had little chance of securing it.

It is now contemplating turning the private member's bill into a Government bill so it can be debated and passed next week.

The procedural sleights of hand are a measure of Labour's desperate desire to rid itself of the measure. But the bill's opponents see them as further examples of a cynical Government manipulating the system.

Even the sweetener offered by the Government - a Ministry of Social Development review of how the new law is working two years after it comes into force - will be treated with suspicion. There is no obligation on the Government to act on the review.

Ostensibly, Labour is waiting for Winston Peters to return from South America so NZ First has some input into discussions on whether the measure should become a Government bill.

Labour's other support partner, United Future, has already expressed strong reservations.

But Labour does not have much choice. The furore over Bradford's bill has already completely overshadowed Labour's highlighting of social measures which come into force on April 1. These include the $10 family tax credit, a boost in the minimum wage and four weeks' annual leave.

Labour cannot afford a repeat episode when Parliament resumes in May following the three-week recess in April. Why? Let's just say two words - the Budget.
 

30 March 2007 - Manawatu Standard - Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4011184a10.html

Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother

By GRANT MILLER - Manawatu Standard | Friday, 30 March 2007


Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).

"CYFS seems to have so much power," said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.

She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.

Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove "reasonable force" for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.

Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.

She says she asked: "If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police - would you have to come out and investigate?"

The answer was yes.

Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.

Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.

She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that's when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.

"That's the bit that scared me - having CYFS on your doorstep," Mrs Elliott said.

"I've got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.

"A light smack for correction is not abuse," she added.

Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.

He said it would be "difficult to say, categorically" if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.

However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said reported assaults on children would "almost invariably" end up with CYFS.

"If a parent admits to smacking a child, that's clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported," he said.

Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be "basically mandatory".

Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.

Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.

"Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault," Mr O'Connor said.

"Police are not going to go around looking for it," he added.

Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.

"The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do."
 

29 March 2007 - Email from Larry Baldock

Hi everyone,

What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.

The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!

If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.

The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.

What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbviZdqN5zs&mode=related&search=

After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.

More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!

Warm regards
Larry Baldock
 

28 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals

28 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00360.htm

Bradford's Bill will create new criminals

Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 10:46 am
Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR

In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.

Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford's Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."

How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)

There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.

Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).

Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.

Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml
I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm

In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.

In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.

A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007
http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3

A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007
http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485

These are unprecedented happenings.

Here is a little more info. about the chaos that reigns among children and young people in Sweden: Yesterday, the newspapers published a news item about a school stabbing in Olofstorp, where I live and two of my children were pupils. According to Gothenburg Newspaper (Göteborgs Tidningen, GT) it started with a fight between two boys. One was kicked in his face! and another boy (16 yr old) intervened and stabbed the other 16 yr old in his leg. See http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.611855 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601. Please note that in 1988 Sweden enacted a law forbidding knives and other cutting weapons in public places, in schools etc.

The Swedish smacking ban did not create a peace-loving, non-fighting generation. Instead it has created societal problems with unruly and even dangerous children. The recently published UNICEF Innocenti report gives Sweden 15th place in family and peer relations. See http://www.unicef-icdc.org/presscentre/presskit/reportcard7/rc7_eng.pdf

If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.


Gothenburg, Sweden, March 28, 2007.

ENDS
 

28 March 2007 - Family Life International - Another non-smacking cause of child aggression

28 March 2007 - Family Life International - Another non-smacking cause of child aggression

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00365.htm

Another non-smacking cause of child aggression

Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 11:11 am
Press Release: Family Life International
PRESS RELEASE
A press release from Family Life International, New Zealand


Wednesday 28.03.07

New comprehensive US study shows yet another cause of child aggression that isn’t smacking

A new study in the March/April 2007 of Child Development shows that the more time that children spend in centre-based care before kindergarten the more likely they are to display aggressive and disruptive behaviours during later stages of development.

The study, led by Jay Belsky, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues and Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck University of London, focused on 1364 children who had been tracked since birth as part of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.

The study showed that teachers reported more frequent problem behaviours such as: argues a lot; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; and screams a lot from children who had been in day-care.

The study confirms the findings of research conducted in Canada last year which showed that children in day-care were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and research conducted in the UK in 2005 which showed that day-care was linked to "higher levels of aggression."

“This research adds to a large and growing body of research which shows that child aggression and disruptive behaviours are not linked to smacking; contrary to the unscientific claims continually promoted by many supporters of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill” says Family Life International media spokesperson; Brendan Malone.

In today’s edition of the NZ Herald the Prime Minister states that “New Zealand has it on its conscience that our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling.”

“If the Government is really is so concerned with child welfare then why are they targeting loving physical discipline of children, when research clearly shows us that is has nothing to do with child violence?” says Mr Malone.

ENDS
 

27 March - The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.

27 March - The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200703271946/government_may_pick_up_bradfords_bill,_predicts_national

Government may pick up Bradford's bill, predicts National

Posted at 7:46pm on 27 Mar 2007

The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.

If that happens, the legislation could be passed before the Easter recess.

The government abandoned its bid to pass the bill under urgency this week, saying it believes it would have had the numbers but the bill was causing ructions within other parties.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen refused to comment when asked if the government might pick up Ms Bradford's bill.

This would result in its being debated on usual sitting days, rather than the fortnightly members' day, and its passing as early as next week.

National says it would be a cunning way of getting legislation off the agenda by passing it more quickly.

Bradford unfazed by delay
However, Green MP Sue Bradford says she is relaxed about the failure of the bill to pass this week.

Ms Bradford says that as long as the parliamentary support she has obtained for the bill stays solid she is happy to wait.

The bill passed a second reading by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.

May date
Because Parliament is in recess for much of April, the final vote will not take place until May. Opponents say will give them valuable time to lobby MPs.

National MP Chester Borrows says the government's decision not to debate the anti-smacking legislation under urgency is a victory for his party. He says National's position is vindicated by polling that suggests 83% of New Zealanders oppose the bill.
 

27 March - NZ Herald - Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

27 March - NZ Herald - Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966

Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law

5:00AM Tuesday March 27, 2007

One of the great ironies of the anti-smacking debate is Sue Bradford's touching faith in the police and the justice system - and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions.

I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of pre-schoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children.

But whether I choose to smack or not to smack - or whether anyone does - isn't the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil.

I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people.

The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community - and their children.



I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.

I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.

I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.

I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging teenage daughter after she damaged her bedroom.The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty.

I saw the realisation dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen "as a father's right", so they could not say it was reasonable discipline.

I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: "Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable."

Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.

In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn't used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.

Sue Bradford doesn't trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.

She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.

She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won't. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.

The police may not, and I'm sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate - and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.

Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. "Investigate" sounds benign. It is not.

That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It's not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.

All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.

This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford's concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.

Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.

Some are not. Some get caught up in a "means to an end" approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation - and the discretion it gives them - for the wrong purpose.

It won't be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.

The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don't give the police this much discretion. He's right, and we should listen to him.

* Michele Wilkinson-Smith is a lawyer
 

27 March 2007 - NZPA - Smacking row heats up

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4007571a11.html

Smacking row heats up

By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Tuesday, 27 March 2007


Government ministers have clashed with opposition MPs in Parliament over Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking ahead of another debate on it tomorrow.

Although the bill might not go to a final vote before mid-year, campaigns against it peak tomorrow with a march on Parliament and another day of full page protest advertisements in newspapers.

Prime Minister Helen Clark, facing a barrage of questions in Parliament, voiced her strongest support so far for the bill.

"It is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking," she said as opposition MPs insisted it did exactly that.

"I believe if this bill passes the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops, bits of wood and the rest of it."

The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of justifiable "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Supporters, including Miss Clark, say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and cannot be banned because it already is.

Opponents say removing the "reasonable force" clause from the Crimes Act will turn parents in criminals if they even lightly smack their children.

National MPs accused Miss Clark of forcing her members to support the bill, and said she should have allowed them to exercise conscience votes free from party instructions.

"What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury through violence in the home," Miss Clark replied.

ACT MP Heather Roy said the Government was overriding the view of a majority of New Zealanders and had no right to tell her, a mother of five, how to raise her children.

Education Minister Steve Maharey said the bill did not ban smacking and did not tell parents anything.

"It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children," he said.

The bill is in the middle of its committee stage, the only stage at which it can be amended.

National MP Chester Borrows want to change it and insert a section which would allow light smacking. His amendment is likely to be voted on tomorrow.

Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes to defeat the amendment. A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.

She believes support will hold at about that level through the committee stage and the final third reading.

National MPs have managed to delay progress on the bill, and are expected to run more time-wasting tactics tomorrow.

Now that the Government has given up trying to put it on the fast track, it might have to wait until June before it comes up for the third reading vote that will determine whether it becomes law.

Member's bills can only be debated every second Wednesday when Parliament is sitting, and the three-week Easter recess is coming up.
 

27 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals

27 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals

For immediate release
Dear Editor,

I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you my reaction to the article "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime" that was printed in the Scoop on March 26, 2007.

Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org


*************
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR


In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful (sic!) stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.


Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford’s Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."


How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)


There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.


Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).


Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.


Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.


Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml">http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml


I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm


In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.


In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.


A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007

http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3


A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007

http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485


These are unprecedented happenings.


If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.


Gothenburg, Sweden, March 27, 2007.
 

26 March 2007 - TVNZ - Vast number against smacking bill

26 March 2007 - TVNZ - Vast number against smacking bill
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1037215

Vast number against smacking bill


Related Video
(Go into link above to watch these video links)

New blow for smacking bill (2:18)
Fury over smacking bill fast-track (2:12)
PM questioned on smacking (3:47)
Smacking debate remains divided (5:20)
Parents may defy smacking ban (1:13)
Sharples on smacking debate (5:41)
Labour loses ground despite plaudits (3:32)

Related Articles
(Go into link above to listen to audio links)

Anti-smacking fight heats up
Fury over smacking bill fast-track
Move to fast-track smacking bill
Former cop wades into smacking debate
Kiro told to keep nose out of politics
Smacking debate remains divided
One News Colmar Brunton poll: March 2007

Poll
(Go into link above to vote in this poll)
Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?


Mar 26, 2007

Anti-smacking campaigners have been dealt a fresh blow, with a new poll showing an overwhelming number of New Zealanders support parents' right to smack their naughty children.

The news comes as MPs prepare to once again debate the controversial bill banning smacking, and those against it are promising to keep turning up the heat.

A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children.

Just 15% disagreed with that, but supporters of Sue Bradford's bill say it is not aimed at those who lightly smack their child.

"The point of the Bradford bill is to enable the police to successfully prosecute serious child beaters," Prime Minister Helen Clark says.

It is already illegal to hit children but if prosecuted you have a legal defence that you were simply using reasonable force to correct their behaviour. The bill removes that defence because Bradford and others believe it was being wrongly used to get people off the hook for hitting their children with a riding crop or wooden sticks.

But there does not seem to be much faith that the bill will actually help those children. Just 18% say it will cut child abuse rates while 78% say it will do nothing.

With the bill to be debated again on Wednesday, the pressure is being racheted up.

A new advertising campaign against it kicks off on Tuesday. Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power are placing a full page newspaper advertisement to encourage people to sign a petition against the bill.

So far the petition has received more than 50,000 signatures. The aim is to hit 300,000 so the government is forced to hold a referendum.

More protests are also planned and one party is even threatening its own MPs with the boot next election if they do not vote against the controversial law.

Results supported

The Colmar poll results are backed by a Research New Zealand survey, which showed that of the 497 people polled 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the anti-smacking bill.

The poll also showed that 72% of New Zealanders thought that if the bill were to be passed into law, it would be unenforceable.

The poll also found those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the legislation, with a quarter strongly supporting the bill.

Fourteen other polls conducted by various organisations show on average about 80% of people oppose the legislation.

A text message poll run by Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.

"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past two years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 83% of Kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the anti-smacking bill.

"The message is clear to our politicians," says McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research - namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."
 

26 March 2007 -- News Talk ZB - Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped

26 March 2007 -- News Talk ZB - Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114697

Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped

26/03/2007 19:28:02


The government has confirmed that it will no longer seek urgency on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.


Labour had been seeking support for the final stages of the private member's bill to be considered under urgency on Wednesday.


But a spokesman for the office of Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen says that will no longer happen.


Amendments to Sue Bradford's bill will still be debated by Parliament on Wednesday.
 

26 March 2007 - Bay of Plenty Times - Smacking law gets thumbs down in Bay

http://www..co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3727409&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection

Smacking law gets thumbs down in Bay

26.03.2007

By CARLY UDY
Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill has received an overwhelming thumbs down from Western Bay residents.

A special Bay of Plenty Times text message poll on Saturday asked readers Do you think smacking should be outlawed? A staggering 94.6 per cent of the 354 respondents said "no", with only 5.4 per cent saying "yes".

The Government will this week decide whether they will attempt to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.

If they do so Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill could be passed into law by the end of the week.

The bill would remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children but opponents say it will outlaw smacking.
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament this Wednesday.

Ms Bradford said the Government had sought the Green Party's support for an urgency motion, which requires a majority.

But the Government would still need others to back the move before it could take urgency to pass the bill through its remaining stages.

To do that it would need the Maori Party, which supports Ms Bradford's bill, along with the six Green MPs, plus at least one other _ one of the two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill _ to get the 61 votes it needs to bring the matter before Parliament under urgency this week.

NZ First and the Maori party both said their parties would discuss the issue at their caucus meetings tomorrow. National MP for Tauranga Bob Clarkson said the anti-smacking bill was an ``extreme case of bad law'' and Prime Minister Helen Clark would achieve little in agreeing to have the bill fast tracked.

"Helen's got herself in a corner and she can't back out now or she'll upset the Greens," he said.

Mr Clarkson said by fast tracking the bill before Easter, Helen Clark perceived the issue would have cooled down after Parliament's three-week break.

"You can't take the control away from the parents, it's just ridiculous. Parents should have the right to control their children in a fair way and not beat them, of course," he said.

Mr Clarkson said 96 per cent of parents in New Zealand wanted the right to control their children.

"Sue Bradford talks about stopping parents beating their children, that is rubbish. The bill stops them touching their children and that is just silly. This is an extreme case of bad law."

Tony Ryall, National MP for the Bay of Plenty, said the Bay of Plenty Times poll reflected the feedback he was getting from the community. "Parents are angry that sticky beak Government is telling them how to run their families. Parents know the difference between a smack and a smash."

Mr Ryall said the bill would not stop one child from being beaten and it is was only being fast tracked because Miss Clark didn't want New Zealanders to know "how out of touch" she was.

Sue Bradford drafted legislation early last year seeking to repeal the law that allows parents to use reasonable force to punish their children.

She described the current law as "barbaric".
 

26 March 2007 - Society for the Promotion of Community Standards - Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00325.htm

Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
Monday, 26 March 2007, 12:52 pm

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

Press Release
26 March 2007

Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family


Judge Inglis QC did not support Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS) determined efforts to remove four foster boys from an outstanding foster parent "Mrs C" based on CYFS overblown "reservations" presented to the Family Court, over her very limited historic use of mild smacking for "correction". In the Family Court in Auckland in July/August 2003 the Judge accepted Mrs C's "evidence about the three occasions [she had smacked her boys] and that they were the only occasions on which the children had been smacked at her home." The specific incidents came to light when a psychologist interviewed the boys. (CYFS have regularly instructed their social workers to inform parents that smacking is "child abuse", "violence" and "hitting" and for years have deliberately and dishonestly conflated mild smacking with "child abuse"). The Judge accepted that section 59 of Crimes Act (1961) provided a justification for Mrs C and all foster parents to use "reasonable force" for correction of their children, despite the fact that CYFS had a policy against the use of corporal punishment. (Sue Bradford's private members bill that all Labour MPs are being forced to support, in some cases against their conscience, would remove this justification/defence if it became law).

"The first [incident involving Mrs C]: was when she had parked her car, with all four children in it, on a slope, and one of the children mischievously let off the handbrake so that the car rolled back and there was nearly a serious accident. After reapplying the handbrake she gave that child a smack with her bare hand. The second was when she found two of the boys pocking pieces of paper into the electric radiator so as to start a fire. She gave each of them a smack with her bare hand. The third incident happened when it became known that one of the smaller boys had formed a habit of spreading faeces over the toilet seat and other available surfaces. She warned him of what would happen if he did it again, emphasising health risks, and when he did so she gave him a smack with her bare hand." The Judge noted that "the psychologist, in her evidence, wished to record that she had detected no indication of excessive smacking, no signs of fear, that none of the boys appeared to be bothered about the incidents, and that there was in her opinion no question of physical abuse." [Family Court, Auckland. CYFS 004082-086D 01, July 29, 30, 14 August 2003, par. 40].

If Ms Bradford's ridiculous anti-family bill, that makes the use of "reasonable force" (including smacking) for the purposes of "correction" of a child, a criminal offence, becomes law; loving parents like Mrs "C" will have no legal defence against allegations of criminal activity leveled against them by CHEFS or any other agency or individual, once charged by police. Judge Inglis ruled that given the nature of the offences committed by the boys under Mrs C's care, ' "correction" was necessary and that each child was smacked in that honest - and indeed justified - belief.' He stated: "I am left in no doubt that each child would have clearly understood the reason why that punishment was necessary and would have seen it not as rejection by a loved and trusted adult or an arbitrary abuse of power, but as decisive, instant, necessary and fair correction... in each instance... the degree of force used was mild and reasonable within the context of the circumstances as they presented themselves as true." [par 45] "In her oral evidence Mrs C acknowledged, with complete candour, that she had smacked one or other of the children on three separate occasions. I had no difficulty accepting the accuracy of her evidence that all those occasions were long before the present hearing, and that once the children understood - to their surprise - that she was capable of giving them a smack, she has never had occasion to do the same." [par. 40]
Judge Inglis is one of the most highly respected and senior family court judges in New Zealand. He acknowledged that CYFS had "good reasons" to have a policy against the use of corporal punishment "given its responsibility for sometimes seriously physically abused children". However, he noted that "there was some debate during the hearing on whether in circumstances of the present case the Department's policy could be legally operative because of the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961, s 59".

If Ms Bradford's bill becomes law, the force of the amendments added during the select committee stage will be to ensure that whenever a parent or person in the place of a parent faces charges in court for using any form of force for the purposes of correction on a their child; once that purpose is established, there is no defence or justification they can appeal to in law. Even if the purpose involved other factors beside correction, for example safeguarding the health and well-being of the family, the component of correction, however slight, removes any defence they might have had if the purpose was ONLY that of stopping a dangerous behaviour/habit.

Judge Inglis commended "Mrs C" in the 2003 case for her outstanding parenting skills with the boys. He awarded her full custody of the boys to her and negated the custody order vested in the Chief Executive of CYFS that had made them custodians of the state. That department, so obsessed with its concerns over the 'smacking', had taken the 'allegations' of smacking (= "assault" in the assessment of CYFS) against Mrs C to the family Court in order to prove them and in the hope of blocking Mrs "C" from ever having custody of the boys again. Thank God Judge Inglis found that section 59 provided a defence for Mrs C's loving and corrective actions.

The Society is calling on all MPs to vote against Sue Bradford's "silly" and "ridiculous" bill. These pejorative words have been used by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, to rubbish s. 59 of the Crimes Act. (The Society chooses to apply the same words to apply to Bradford's flawed bill). Bradford and Clark have both been guilty of lying to the New Zealand public by claiming that if the bill becomes law, it will not ban smacking outright and will not criminalise good parents who apply a mild smack to a child for correction.

The case involving "Mrs C" was presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee by the Society in its written and oral submissions on Ms Bradford's flawed private member's bill. The Labour and Green MPs on the committee exhibited no interest whatsoever in any aspect of the Society's well-researched and comprehensive submission. It was very clear that their minds were not open to any viewpoint other than their own: the complete repeal of s. 59.

A summary of the Society's submission can be found at: http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/97/41/

ENDS
 

26 March 2007 - Family Integrity - Selling Out

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00320.htm
Selling Out
Sunday, 25 March 2007, 12:52 pm
Press Release: Family Integrity
Press Release For Immediate Distribution

Selling Out

The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they've done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won't even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party's steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.

Bradford's Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of "rights" determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.

"The best interests of the child" is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations...and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors' offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.

Be afraid, parents, of Bradford's Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.

ends
 

24 March 2007 - NZ Centre for Political Debate - The Smacking Bill a Con Job

24 March 2007
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm

The Smacking Bill a Con Job

New Zealand is being conned over the so-called anti-smacking bill.

Touted as being the way to prevent child abuse, this bill is part of an international movement designed to undermine parental authority and increase state control over children. While a dozen or so countries have succumbed to the pressure of the anti-smacking lobby and the United Nations, the overwhelming majority have not (see “Smacking Laws in other Countries” BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_3866000/3866747.stm

The promoters of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill want to remove section 59 of the Crimes Act, so that parents who discipline their children using “reasonable” force will no longer be protected from the charge of assault. They claim this is necessary because section 59 is being used as a shield to protect child abusers. Yet since 1990 there have only been seven successful defenses using section 59!

The public can recognize a con job when they see one. That is why they are fighting back with email campaigns, newspaper advertisements, marches, meetings, petitions and debates. It is this organised opposition that is threatening Labour to such an extent that they are now plotting to undermine the democratic process by calling the House into urgency. If they succeed, the bill will be fast-tracked through Parliament with the rest of the committee stages and the final third reading all held this week.

At the centre of the controversy over the bill is the Prime Minister. She reassured the country before the last election that she would not support a smacking ban: "As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court." (see http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1024326 )

The Minister of Justice at the time, Phil Goff agreed saying that while he supported the bill going to a select committee, he did not want to make criminals out of parents (click here to read the Herald article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10329981).

When the bill was first introduced into Parliament, Labour MPs were asked to support it to a select committee on the understanding they would be given a conscience vote for the subsequent stages. However, when Philip Field resigned and Labour needed the Green Party’s support to stay in power, all of that changed and the Prime Minister now expects all Labour MPs to vote with the party.

But in a Parliamentary democracy they don’t have to do that. MPs have sovereign rights and history is rich with stories of brave MPs who cross the floor over important matters putting the best interests of their constituents and the country ahead of party politics.

When the anti-smacking debate started, the government funded a Canadian anti-smacking advocate Dr Joan Durrant to visit New Zealand to promote her controversial view that Sweden’s smacking ban – introduced in 1979 - had reduced child abuse to “virtually zero”. It is a view that had been discredited a few years ago by other researchers (see Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213).

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish attorney and President of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, was brought to New Zealand (by private interests), to address the Select Committee and put the record straight about Sweden. She is this week’s NZCPD Guest Commentator. In an article entitled “The Smacking Ban: A Dangerous Law”, Ruby states:

Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. (To read the article click http://www.nzcpd.com/guest46.htm)

The abolition of smacking in Sweden has resulted in children being taught their rights to such an extent that many parents are now afraid of them: children freely use intimidation, threatening to report parents to police and social services, if they don’t get their way. Tragically, when these children finally realise the disastrous effects that police and social service investigations are having on their families and try to withdraw their accusations, they are unable to do so (for more details see “When Parents Become Victims” click http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm)

A summary of some of the cases that have been taken against parents since the law-change took place in Sweden makes for chilling reading: shoppers calling the police when parents restrain their children in the supermarket; pre-schoolers taken into care for asking questions about smacking; parents prosecuted for insisting teenagers help around the house; unsubstantiated claims of abuse by neigbours and work colleagues forcing police and social service investigations; foster parents arrested for restraining their violent charges (to read the “Case Law” details click here http://www.nzcpd.com/Swedish%20smacking%20cases.pdf).

Both Sue Bradford and Helen Clark have tried to claim that the Police will not prosecute parents who lightly smack a child, but the Police advice to the Select Committee refutes this view: any case of alleged violence against a child would have to be investigated by the Police with the involvement of social services where possible (to read the Police advice click here )http://www.nzcpd.com/policeadvice.pdf.

The President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, in an editorial in the latest edition of Police News also states very clearly that using force against children will be categorised as family violence and “offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested” (click here to read his article “Smacking and Discretion” http://www.policeassn.org.nz/communications/index.htm).

A legal opinion by Peter McKenzie QC has also concluded that parents who not only smack their child, but also remove them against their will to a time out zone or “naughty mat” would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed bill.

Meanwhile, in Britain where a bid to ban smacking outright failed but led to the law being amended to clarify what is meant by smacking, a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into youth crime is being told that fear of prosecution as a result of the new law change is now preventing parents from correcting and disciplining their children. An article in the Telegraph, A Smack Can Keep Children From Crime Says Police Leader, states: "Parents are authority figures in their children's lives and they need to have effective sanctions at their disposal when their children misbehave. If children don't learn to respect their parents, there is little hope that they will respect other authority figures. If parents are to be held responsible for their children's behaviour at school and in the community, it is vital that their authority to reasonably correct their children is recognised. The more parents' authority is undermined, the less responsibility they will be inclined to take for their children, and the more their children will grow out-of-control (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml ).

With New Zealand’s Chief Family Court Judge now calling for greater accountability for young offenders, is it sensible that our Parliament appears set to pass laws that will undermine parental authority? As the police Chief in the Telegraph article said: “Children lack discipline and turn to crime because their parents are too scared to smack them. Parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge”. Is this really what we want for New Zealand?

If you agree with the views expressed in this newsletter, please do two things: firstly, send it on to as many other people as you can to read; secondly, become a financial subscriber to support its continuation (click here to subscribe http://www.nzcpd.com/support.htm).

The poll this week asks: Do you believe that the repeal of section 59 would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime? Take part in poll http://www.nzcpd.com/polls.htm
 

23 March 2007 - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.- Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families

23 March 2007 - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.- Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00310.htm

Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
Friday, 23 March 2007, 5:15 pm
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.

23 March 2007
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families

A tragic case involving the criminalisation of two experienced, mature and loving foster parents for lightly smacking their foster boy for his extensive vandalism, and the splitting up for good of their family, serves as a serious warning to New Zealanders of what will happen if Sue Bradford’s “silly” and “ridiculous” bill, that seeks to repeal s. 59, becomes law. (These very same pejorative words were used by the Prime Minister Helen Clark in a live interview, in the context of her giving support to Bradford’s bill, to rubbish section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides a justification for parents to use “reasonable force” in the context of corrective domestic discipline of their kids).

Helen Clark, who has never had children (nor have her two male Labour party whips who are forcing all Labour MPs to support Bradford’s flawed bill,) has been quite wrong to rubbish s. 59. About 80-90 percent of New Zealanders strongly disagree with her. Based on extensive nation-wide polls over the last two years, they all want s. 59 retained and oppose Bradford’s flawed bill that has now become Clark’s troublesome ‘baby’. The remaining 10 to 20 percent who have swallowed Bradford’s rhetoric find it hard to believe that the government authorities will take kids away from good parents for formal complaints of smacking "correctly", should the bill become law. "It's just not going to happen for good parents who smack correctly" they scream at opponents of the bill. These vitriolic ideologues are already obsessed with proselytising their beliefs that only bad and inadequate parents smack their kids for corrective purposes.

In her recent Green Party press release Bradford denies that her bill will criminalise parents who use “reasonable force” (including light smacking) with their children to correct them. Clark too has claimed that the bill will not have the effect of banning smacking. Both claims are outright lies and they both know it. Their gullible and misguided followers assume that kids will not be taken away from parents by government agencies for “light smacking” or other applications of "reasonable force" used for correction. Bradford has beguiled them into believing that police will just turn a blind eye to all complaints over such mild forms of corporal corrective discipline. No doubt Clark and Bradford believe that they will be focused on pursuing rapists, murders and terrorists and will not be side-tracked by reports of smacking.

The case of foster parents Anne and Don Eathorne reveals how the government agency Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) removed two long-term foster kids from them just days after highly inflammatory allegations surfaced that they had been ‘abused’. The whole case was the subject of an intense and detailed expose on a TVNZ Sunday documentary that screened on 9 April 2006 (producer Chris Harrington TVNZ). The grave injustice by CYFS against the parents was well documented. The national case manager for CYFS, Ms Lorraine Williams, was interviewed at length on the programme about the case and repeatedly inferred that the couple were child abusers, thereby defaming them in a libellous and unprofessional outbursts. Her only basis for such vitriolic accusations was a “police file” containing ‘evidence’ against the couple, ‘evidence’ that the police saw fit not to pursue before the Court jury and so dropped.

The Eathornes had fostered 26 children over a number of years and had an unblemished record, prior to CYFS removing the two kids from them. At the time the programme went to air the Eathornes were still on the CYFS books as legitimate foster parents. As yet CYFS has failed to go through due process to remove them officially as foster parents and failed to follow due process when they removed the kids.

The Eathorne’s foster boy, aged 10 years at the time, was lovingly disciplined in 2002 by Anne Eathorne for wilfully causing about $5,000 damage (vandalism) to farm equipment owned by their employer. Some months later he did about $1,000 of damage to his school principal's car. He again was lovingly but firmly disciplined by Anne. Don Eathorne was not present at either discipline sessions. The “extensive property damage” that led to the discipline was noted in Judge Colin Doherty’s court decision in 2006 in which he convicted them of child assault for smacking. He had noted that they had gone way beyond the call of duty in paying for the medical bills of the boy, payments made prior to the corporal discipline. He noted that Anne had openly admitted to disciplining the boy when first approached by the police about the historical case.

CYFS who were ultimately responsible for the boy (and his sister) refused to pay anything towards the vandalism bills and deny to this day that the vandalism took place. The Eathornes were forced to cover both bills in full themselves. The boy ceased his vandalism after the second benign discipline session. Over two years later the incident was reported to CYFS, not by the boy who was disciplined, but by another older foster boy (a short-term placement that commenced on 7 April 2005) who heard about it through the 'victim' while stating short-term in the Eathorne's home. The older boy was placed by CYFS at very short notice, with the Eathornes in Karamea. CYFS could find no one else willing to care for him and the Eathorne's felt pressured by CYFS and then offered to assist. That boy, who arrived with no CYFS paperwork as required, was well known to CYFS social workers as a liar and a very troubled individual. He was dropped at their doorstep one evening. He got talking to the other two younger foster children and learnt of the historical ‘smacking’ incidents that occurred several years earlier. He then ran away from the Eathornes after staying only a few days with them and reported the 'assaults' to his CYFS social worker, embellishing the tale with a number of other claims of abuse.

CYFS acted within a few days of learning of the incidents and without notifying the foster parents or going through due process, arrived at their doorsteps and removed the boy AND his sister (both in long-term foster care). Don and Anne have had no access to the kids since. It is clear that CYFS worked closely with police to ensure that they faced serious charges in court. Both Anne and Don were fined $500 each in the Greymouth District Court on 30 January 2006 By Judge Colin Doherty, convicted of an assault against a child, under s 194 of the Crimes Act, and had to pay $130 in court costs. Neither can ever work with kids in any role again - professional or voluntary. The 'assault' consisted of two short smacks to the open palm of the hand delivered by Anne (Don was not present). The boy willingly complied with the corrective discipline and only reasonable force was used. He never raised any complaints with his CYFS social worker over the years prior to the matter coming to the attention of the police via the short-term foster boy’s complaint. Anne demonstrated on the Sunday programme how she carried out the safe smacking which in no way harmed the boy, as the Judge had noted.

The Judge accepted submissions from the parents' lawyer Mr Doug Taffs that the smacking discipline was "benign:" and "not gratuitous violence" (Dominion Post 11/02/06 NZPA story). He also accepted Mr Taff's submissions on behalf of his clients that they both had unblemished records as parents and foster parents and had gone well beyond the call of duty in covering medical expenses for the boy for his health problems prior to the two smacking incidents. He also accepted that it was appropriate for Mr Taffs to submit that they should both be discharged without conviction. However, to the Eathorne’s shock, he inexplicably convicted them BOTH of assault and fined them BOTH (total $1,130).

Following the two brief and benign discipline sessions, the foster boy's behaviour showed a marked improvement and the vandalism, according to the couple, ceased. Judge Colin Doherty who issued the judgement with reference to the Crimes Act 1961, did not make any reference to a s. 59 defence to assault and the couple's lawyer Mr Doug Taffs did not refer them to this possible defence that was technically open to them. Neither Don nor Anne had heard about a s. 59 defence at the time and were manipulated, they believe, into pleading guilty of smacking the boy, which Anne had never denied, in a so-called “plea-bargain”. Again, it must be stressed that Anne had always been upfront and honest and acknowledged that she had smacked the boy for wilful vandalism to correct his wayward behaviour. They expected to be discharged without a conviction after agreeing to the plea bargain, but the Judge instead accepted their honest admission of smacking using reasonable force for correction as an admission of assault, which clearly it was not, if s. 59 had been properly applied. S. 59 provides a justification for the use of such ALL parents and foster parents, but was ignored by the Court.

If Bradford succeeds in getting her flawed bill into law, the s. 59 defence will be gone altogether for all parents and caregivers. Parents who use ANY form of reasonable force (including light smacking) for the purpose of correction, will be committing a criminal offences in law and will open themselves up to having formal charges laid against them by their own kids, neighbours or zealous CYFS social workers based on hearsay evidence, and possibly find themselves convicted of assault and child abuse.

Parents and especially foster parents have much to be concerned about over this bill. There are six cases similar to the above involving CYFS that have been notified to the Families Commission by a member of our organisation. The Society documented others in its written and oral submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee considering Bradford's bill last year.

ENDS
 

23 March 2007 - Society for the Promotion of Community Standards - Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill

http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/bradford-grilled-on-anti-smacking-bill-and-is-found-wanting/

Bradford grilled on anti-smacking Bill: and is found wanting
Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 23rd, 2007

Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:39 am
Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards


Media Release - Political Comment: For Immediate Release…..

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz

Press Release
23 March 2007

Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill

OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP AND HER RESPONSES

QUESTIONS TO GREEN MP SUE BRADFORD
dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% - 90% of New Zealanders polled.

Question: 1
On the Agenda programme (see reference below) Sue Bradford MP stated:
“It’s actually illegal now to smack your child”.
Would Ms Bradford kindly clarify why this statement is correct and true in view of the justification granted in law (s. 59 of the Crimes Act 1961) for parents and those in the place of parents to use “reasonable force” with their children (including smacking) for the purposes of correction. S 59 is headed “domestic discipline” and does not refer to “smacking” specifically. Agend Link: http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Transcript17March2007/tabid/1217/Default.aspx

BRADFORD’S ANSWER
Assault on a child is a criminal offence under section 194 of the Crimes Act. Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides a justification defence to a charge brought under section 194. That justification is that “Every parent of a child … and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact. Whether smacking for the purpose of domestic discipline in any particular situation is lawful or unlawful is therefore determined by the particular circumstances. Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.

Question 2
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a person to use “reasonable force” to fend off a criminal assaillant in a case in which the victim (the one attacked) considers at the time of the attack, he/she was fending-off the assaillant in self-defence? (see s. 48 of Crimes Act).

BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided the force used is reasonable in the circumstances that the person exercising the force finds themselves in.

Question 3
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a ship’s captain to use reasonable force to subdue dangerous behaviour by an adult passenger on his boat, if he believes that the actions constitute a threat to the safety of the boat and its passengers and crew? (see section 60 of Crimes Act).

BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided that the captain believes the use of force is necessary in the circumstances.

Question 4.
Does Ms Bradford believe that it is unlawful for a parent to apply reasonable force against a child who wilfully acts to put himself/herself in harms way (e.g. lunges towards a hot stove element or into the path of an oncoming train in total disregard of the parent’s verbal instructions)?

BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, I believe this is already a justification under common law, but have agreed to the insertion of a specific clarification provision in my Bill as reported by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, in response to assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it may not be so justified.
[We referred Ms Bradford to the Scoop article for her to carefully reflect upon pointing out that dishonesty and deceitfulness are not personal qualities the NZ public tolerate in MPs.]

SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO MS BRADFORD’S ANSWERS
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007

Dear Ms Fran Tyler

Please thank Ms Bradford for the answers she has supplied to the Society’s questions (1-4) re her bill.

However, having studied her answers, we are unable to comprehend how her position can be logically coherent within a legal framework. All our members feel the same way.

Please present to her a few short follow-up questions seeking urgent clarification. We would appreciate her prompt assistance.

Re Queston 1.

If as Ms Bradford stated on TV One’s Agenda programme: “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” - why has she in responsed to Q 1 by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” [Emphasis added]. We believe that it follows logically from the latter statement that some smacking is LEGAL; therefore the Agenda programme comment is inconsistent and misleading to say the least.

Questions: seeking clarification:

(i) How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and

(ii) what forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act?

(iii) Is it the smacking that is legal under current law or that which is illegal under current law that her bill intends to make illegal, or is it both forms?

(iv) Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful under current law for a parent or person in the place of a parent to use “reasonable force” in the context of domestic discipline, for the purpose of correcting a child who exhibits extreme defiance and/or disobedience despite a number of clearly defined warnings to desist from wrong behaviour (see section 59 of Crimes Act)?

(v) Is it the intention in her bill to prevent parents from correcting their children by using ANY actions that involve “reasonable force” in the circumstances? (vi) If so why, and why particularly has she sought to make illegal the use of ALL forms of force for correction carried out by the parent to achieve compliance from the disobediant/defiant child?

Re. Qs 2-3

(vi) In the light of Ms Bradford’s negative answers concerning the lawful use of “reasonable force” in self-defence (s. 48) and by ship’s captains (s. 60), which we accept as correct; why did she state on Agenda “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” when she knew full well that this is untruthful (s. s. 59) and has now done a U-turn on by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” (see above)? [Note the “reasonable force” defence provisions in s. 59, 60 and 48 serve the same purposes in protected those who use the force and those subject to the force].

Re Q. 4.

(vii) Ms Bradford agreed to amendments to her bill which she now admits she did not feel were necessary, but agreed to in order to alleviate some doubts by some submitters - as she puts it “assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it [use of reasonable force for removing kids from harms waty etc.] may not be so justified”. In the light of these concessions to submitters, why is she opposed to a clarification of s. 59 (the Borrows amendment) so that judges can point jury members to a clearer definition of “reasonable force” as it applies to actions taken by parents in corrective discipline on children?

Yours sincerely

David Lane
Secretary
Society for Promotion of community Standards Inc.
 

23 March 2007 - New Zealand National Party - The Mapp Report - Smacking

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00479.htm

The Mapp Report - Smacking
Friday, 23 March 2007, 10:59 am
Column: New Zealand National Party
The Mapp Report
www.waynemapp.co.nz
Smacking

Shutting down debate is a tactic adopted by those who fear the public. That is exactly the position the Labour Government is taking in relation to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.

Next week the government wants to rush the Bill through all stages in a single debate on Wednesday and Thursday. Sue Bradford said there had been enough debate, and it should now be passed. To shove a member’s bill through under urgency is unheard of, especially when it is allegedly a conscience vote – but of course in the Labour Party that means Helen Clark’s conscience.

Parliamentary procedure provides for separate debate on each stage of a Bill for good reason. It is to allow Members of Parliament to reflect, and for the public to make their views known before the next stage is debated. So there have been occasions when a Bill has passed the Committee stage, but gets defeated on the Third Reading. That is because the two or three weeks between the two stages allows an opportunity to reconsider.


The only reason to terminate Parliamentary procedure is to avoid accountability. Labour knows that many of their MP’s don’t want the Bill. They know a three-week recess when the public can talk to the MP’s will mean that many of them will rebel.

The urgency tactic is designed to stifle democracy. But ultimately it is an admission of weakness and fear. Labour may think it can avoid accountability now, but the voters will have their say in 18 months time, and that is a date Labour can’t avoid!


Events

Electorate AGM

March 26 2007

St Georges Presbyterian Church

2 The Terrace, Takapuna

7.30pm

23 March 2007


Dr Wayne Mapp


Visit my website for more information at: www.waynemapp.co.nz

ENDS
 

23 March 2007 - Family First Lobby - Anti-Smacking Bill now a Labour Bill

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00297.htm

Anti-Smacking Bill now a Labour Bill

Friday, 23 March 2007, 9:54 am
Press Release: Family First Lobby.

MEDIA RELEASE
23 MARCH 2007
Anti-Smacking Bill now a Labour Bill

Bradford ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill now Labour ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill

Labour’s decision to attempt to ram through the ‘anti-smacking’ bill under urgency has revealed that this private members bill is now a Labour bill in all but name.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First says that this action, as well as Labour MP’s being told how to exercise their conscience, is ample proof that the criminalisation of good parents is a clear agenda of the Labour party leadership.

“The Prime Minister can no longer hide behind Sue Bradford as sponsor of this bill,” says Mr McCoskrie. “It is unheard of for a private member’s bill to be put into urgency, but this shows the desperation by the Prime Minister to get this legislation rammed through before her MP’s hear the voice of their constituents during the Easter recess and change their vote.”

Mr McCoskrie says that the Labour MP’s must be finding this incredibly difficult, especially as they campaigned before the election that it was a conscience vote. Electorate based MP’s should be concerned about a voter backlash at the election next year.

“It is ironic that Labour have legislated themselves to be innocent over election spending, yet are willing to pass legislation that criminalises and threatens every good family in NZ. To make a light smack a crime shows just how out of touch this government is.”


Family First calls on all National, Maori Party, United Future and NZ First MP’s to immediately withdraw their support for the bill.

ENDS
 

23 March 2007 - ACT New Zealand - Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill

23 March 2007 - ACT New Zealand - Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00481.htm


Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill


Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:31 am
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill
Heather Roy
Friday, 23 March 2007
Press Releases - Other


Urgency Unacceptable For Anti-Smacking Bill

Putting Parliament into urgency to pass the "Anti-smacking Bill" is unacceptable and anti-democratic, says ACT's Deputy Leader and Party Whip, Heather Roy.

"Around 80% of Kiwis are opposed to banning smacking by good and loving parents. Using urgency to force through a Bill simply because it's unpopular is no way to run a democracy", Mrs Roy said.

"Banning responsible parents from lightly smacking their children as a disciplinary measure is not urgent to the welfare of our country, and the argument that it's slowing down the Government's agenda is rubbish - as a Members Bill, it's only able to be debated on Members Days.

"The reality is that the Bill's supporters are trying to shut down public debate, and are prepared to suspend the normal rules of Parliament to do so.

"ACT will oppose urgency just as strongly as we have been opposing this Bill.

"Child abuse is already illegal - unfortunately enforcement of the law is frequently inadequate. This Bill will not change any of that, but it will succeed in criminalising acts of parenting", Mrs Roy said.


ENDS
 

23 March 2007 - TV3 - 200 people march against anti-smacking legislation

200 people march against anti-smacking legislation
Fri-23-Mar-2007 12:32pm

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx
Listen at the link

More than 200 people have turned out for a march in Rangiora, protesting the so-called anti smacking bill.

Labour is seeking support to fast track the legislation and pass the bill into law next week.

One of the organisers of the march, Margaret Vipperman, says she was not surprised by the good turnout.
 

23 March 2007 - A Sue Bradford child, coming to your country soon!

Voted Best Commercial in Europe


What great timing. Just in time for the anti-smacking bill!

This video is 40 seconds long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkWcwJyagW4

or



From Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson:

I hope you realise that this is a little Swedish boy and his "impotent" Swedish father. He swore at his father "Jävla Pappa!" (Damned Daddy).

That's the way Swedish children behave. (They would say the same to their teachers or any other adult.) The father didn't dare do anything else than put the things back on the shelves, blow up his cheeks and look helpless. Also, notice the other shoppers' reactions. No one dares say anything.
 

23 March 2007 - Family Integrity - It Isn't True

It Isn't True

I’ve listened to enough. People are way too polite in saying Green MP Sue Bradford’s motivations are pure and her heart is set on the protection of defenceless children from violence and abuse.

This is simply not true: it is only the smoke screen for her sinister agenda. It is obvious that this Bill does nothing to help abused children or nail abusive parents, but it will make criminals of the best parents in the country.

Physical violence and abuse toward children is not Bradford’s or Labour’s concern: it is the God-ordained authority and influence that parents have over their own children that Bradford is out to neutralise. She hates the idea that parents can legally inculcate and enforce their own traditional Christian family values into their children without being forced to give her radical-feminist-Green values equal time. So her Bill specifically targets “correction”: parents are to be forbidden to correct a child’s bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress or hygiene habits into good ones, regardless of how light or reasonable is the force they use to make the correction.

If parents cannot correct their children, who then can? Government agents getting their directions from the Top, where Sue Bradford intends to dwell. Truancy officers, social workers and police all have legal powers to use even unreasonable force to remove children from families and to ensure attendance at state schooling and propaganda centres (staffed by more Government agents known as school teachers), anger management and drug dependency courses as well as living where they’re told, be it in foster families or a prison.

While a simple dictator would be happy controlling the military and the economy and thickly lining his own pockets, Bradford’s & Labour’s agenda, like the worst Reds of Mao’s China and the USSR, is totalitarianism: they know what’s best for you and me and will control us, our personal thought lives and our children. In this way they hope to claim personal starring roles in Hegel’s idea that “the State is god walking on earth”.

Like Sue and Helen’s older sister Eve, they have a desire to be as god, knowing and determining for themselves - and everyone else while they’re at it - what constitutes good and evil. Eve fell for it. Looks like these two have fallen for it too. May God have mercy on us all.
 

22 March 2007 - Family First - Labour Decision 'Smacks' of Arrogance

22 March 2007 - Family First - Labour Decision 'Smacks' of Arrogance
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00289.htm

Labour Decision 'Smacks' of Arrogance

Thursday, 22 March 2007, 5:11 pm
Press Release: Family First
22 MARCH 2007
Labour Decision 'Smacks' of Arrogance

Family First has been notified that the government is to give urgency to the 'Anti-smacking' bill due back in Parliament next week.

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First, says that if this is the case, the Labour-led government will be showing incredible arrogance and disdain towards the views and concerns of NZ parents and families.

He says that it is unbelievable that Labour are willing to put aside far more pressing issues of health, education, and law and order, all demanding urgent attention, to bring in a law which targets good families, and will do nothing to lower our unacceptable rates of child abuse.

"This attempt to "stick it" to the voters should be ample evidence that this is a bill about forwarding an agenda rather than tackling child abuse in an effective way," says Mr McCoskrie. "The government is not even willing to allow time for an appropriate debate on a bill that invades every home."

"The government is panicking because of the overwhelming tide of public opposition, which will be further evidenced in marches throughout NZ and the signing of the petition demanding a Referendum next week."

Mr McCoskrie says the fact that the Prime Minister is also having to 'whip' her MP's to vote for the bill shows just how weak the bill is, and that she knows that the bill would be defeated if MP's had their say. It is believed that up to as many as 19 Labour MP's are unhappy with being forced to vote for the bill.

"This action of riding rough-shod over the will of NZ'ers will simply energise kiwis to voice their objection to this 'wacky' bill," says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First calls on the United Future, NZ First, National and Maori MP's who were supporting the bill to immediately withdraw their support, and for Labour MP's to demand a conscience vote as was promised to the voters before the last election.

Petition forms demanding a Referendum on the issue of criminalising parents and tackling child abuse can be downloaded at http://www.familyfirst.org.nz. Petition forms can also be obtained from major daily newspapers next Tuesday.

ENDS

You can also download the Petition forms from http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
 

22 March 2007 - NZPA - Govt wants to fast-track smacking bill

22 March 2007 - NZPA - Govt wants to fast-track smacking bill
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4001964a11.html

Govt wants to fast-track smacking bill
By GRANT FLEMING - NZPA | Thursday, 22 March 2007


The Government is seeking support to fast-track legislation under urgency that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.


Leader of the House Michael Cullen today said the Government had not decided whether it would move urgency, which could see Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill passed into law next Wednesday.

But Ms Bradford said the Greens had already been approached by the Government and had indicated they would support an urgency motion.

Such a motion would require the support of a majority of MPs.

Ms Bradford's bill would remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children.

The bill appears to have the numbers to pass into law, but opponents, who say it will outlaw smacking, are mounting a final push against it.

National MPs have managed to delay the bill at its committee stage, meaning that under normal parliamentary processes it would not face its third reading until late April or even May.

Debate on the bill's committee stage, when MPs can attempt to insert amendments, recommences on Wednesday.

But National deputy leader Gerry Brownlee today said the Government appeared to be planning to move urgency so it could "railroad" the bill through Parliament.

Under urgency the bill could proceed to its third reading and be passed into law straight after its committee stage concluded.

Labour needed to make its plans clear.

"(Prime Minister) Helen Clark knows very well that the smacking ban is unpopular with the majority of New Zealanders, and that the public are frustrated that she has not allowed her MPs the opportunity to vote with their consciences," he said.

"To limit the damage it is clear that Labour wants to steamroll this legislation through the House as quickly as possible."

Using urgency would be an abuse of the process, Mr Brownlee said.

Dr Cullen would not directly answer Mr Brownlee's questions in Parliament and afterward a spokesman would not say if the Government was even considering urgency.

He said no decision had been taken.

But, in response to a question from New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown, Dr Cullen said he would consult with parties if an urgency motion was to be taken.

"This bill is, of course, a conscience matter for some caucuses, not operating a party vote, and that complicates procedural matters in this respect, but I'll certainly be consulting with either the leader of NZ First or the acting leader."

Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament next Wednesday.

Ms Bradford yesterday said she was concerned some of them were being influenced by hysteria whipped up around the bill, which she believed would not criminalise parents who lightly smacked their children.

"Any sensible reading of the police guidelines on prosecution will show that police will exercise their discretion on this matter."

The bill as it stands would allow parents to use reasonable force to protect their child, or others from harm, or to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour.

However, it would not allow parents to use force for punishment.
 

22 March 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Is Labour going to railroad the smacking ban?

22 March 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Is Labour going to railroad the smacking ban?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00454.htm

Thursday, 22 March 2007, 2:48 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Gerry Brownlee MP
National Party Shadow Leader of the House
22 March 2007

Is Labour going to railroad the smacking ban?

National Party Shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee says cryptic answers offered in Parliament today lend weight to the suggestion that Labour is planning to "railroad the smacking ban under urgency".

"Michael Cullen should come clean. Either Labour plans to take urgency and ride roughshod over our democracy next week or it doesn't.

"Helen Clark knows very well that the smacking ban is unpopular with the majority of New Zealanders, and that the public are frustrated that she has not allowed her MPs the opportunity to vote with their consciences.

"The Prime Minister also knows that she has been caught out saying one thing about the smacking ban before the election, and giving a completely different story after the election.

"To limit the damage, it is clear that Labour wants to steamroll this legislation through the House as quickly as possible while Helen Clark is out of the country."

What this means is that by Thursday next week Section 59 could be gone. "It is arrogant, it is cynical and Helen Clark should expect to be held to account by New Zealanders for abusing the process to serve her own ends."

ENDS
 

21 March 2007 - Family Integrity - By What Standard?

21 March 2007 - Family Integrity - By What Standard?
By What Standard?

Bradford’s bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The only reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely detached from reality. First, it demonises “correction” of children. This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children’s behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice. Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.

Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population. To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they want to develop.

Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. “Reasonable force” is allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to specify by what standard “offensive” and “disruptive” are to be judged? If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?

Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If it is Bradford’s standards - which include approval of prostitution, dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have a live baby to toy with - it will only prove that this country is no longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford’s Bill.
 

21 March 2007 - Family First - Yet Another Poll Shows Smacking is No Big Deal

21 March 2007 - Family First - Yet Another Poll Shows Smacking is No Big Deal
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00258.htm

Yet Another Poll Shows Smacking is No Big Deal

Wednesday, 21 March 2007, 2:45 pm
Press Release: Family First
MEDIA RELEASE
21 MARCH 2007
Yet Another Poll (yawn!) Shows Smacking is No Big Deal

In the latest of 15 polls run over the last 2 years on this topic, 71% of the 1850 respondents to the STUFF website poll said they had been occasionally smacked and it was no big deal. A further 21% said they were smacked hard but never think about it.

Only 5% said that a hard smack had affected them in a negative way.

Despite this poll not being scientifically accurate, it is consistent with every other poll run over the last 2 years, including a survey done by the anti-smacking lobby for their own Conference last year (Feb 2006) which found 82% support for section 59.

Family First National Director Bob McCoskrie says that parents should take heart from this poll.

Despite the claims of the anti-smacking lobby groups and MP’s, reasonable smacks don’t harm children. Parents should also ignore the accusations that when they smack, they are assaulting their kids and are guilty of violence.

“Reasonable smacking and correction in the context of a loving nurturing family does no harm, as has been confirmed by quality research done by Otago University and the Christchurch School of Medicine,” says Mr McCoskrie.

He says that NZ parents deserve credit for the job they have done, and are doing, raising their children, and they certainly don’t need Sue Bradford’s “education” or the Prime Minister’s “agenda” to fix something that ain’t broke.

Family First continues to call on the government to tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF and CYF reports, and international research – namely family breakdown and dysfunction, substance abuse, and stress and poverty.

ENDS
 

20 March 2007 - The Dominion Post - Flawed backing for a flawed bill

20 March 2007 - The Dominion Post - Flawed backing for a flawed bill
Dominion Post Editorial gets it right on the anti-smacking Bill.
http://www.cyfswatch.org/index.php?mod=article&cat=media&article=522
Flawed backing for a flawed bill

The Dominion Post

Tuesday 20 March 2007

Richard Long

THE LONG VIEW

Social engineering. Labour likes it, but the words send a shudder through the electorate. Accordingly, having got civil union and prostitution law reform on to the books, Labour decided to clear the slate before this third term and not buy into any more of the troublesome stuff.


Georgina Beyer’s transgender equality plans were quietly sidelined before the election and never revived afterward. That move would have made it illegal to discriminate against employing transgender, including in the police and armed forces, which would have resulted in continuing ructions.


Even the move to allow public access to waterways across private land was quietly put on the back-burner pre-election. Labour initially thought it was on a winner on this one, expecting it to come down to a fight between the general public and farmers. But the move instead roused support for private property rights. The proposal has just emerged in greatly watered-down form.


On the election campaign Prime Minister Helen Clark saw the dangers in supporting anti-smacking plans in a radio interview, which has just resurfaced. She responded when asked if she wanted to see smacking banned: "Absolutely not. Well you’re trying to defy human nature."


Explaining her support now for Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, Miss Clark says there has been no change of stance. "This is about people who thrash and beat children".


Ms Bradford similarly argues black is white about her quaintly named The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification of Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. It is not an anti-smacking bill, she proclaims.


It is too. The repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use "reasonable force" to discipline children, in effect makes it a criminal offence to smack. The only exceptions are cases where children are likely to hurt themselves – or when they are bashing other kids or animals. But in the latter cases the corrective smack can be administered only if the child’s actions are likely to cause injury (to siblings or the family pet).


In another words, in the split second before a parent has the chance to deliver an admonishing, corrective smack, they have to make this calculation without consulting a lawyer or doctor. The wrong choice means breaking the law.


Ms Bradford’s supporters argue smacking would be against the law, but argue the police would never prosecute. That’s great. So our MPs are passing a law which they acknowledge will be ignored. And even if the police don’t prosecute, they will have to follow up complaints. The waste of their time and resources will be immense.


Children are pretty resourceful. Some of the little devils, miffed with parents, are quite likely to dial 111 to claim they have been beaten.


What happens after an investigation clears the parents? Will they then be charged with allowing their child to waste police time?


So how did we get into this mess, with Parliament and the country so polarised on legislation which everyone expects parents will ignore?


Labour’s backing for Ms Bradford’s bill was not part of the formal confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, but the belief among many MPs is that it was part of an unofficial understanding, made when Labour saw parliamentary majority problems down the track with the likely defection of Mangare MP Taito Phillip Field.


That also explains why Labour MPs earlier said they were expecting a free vote on the bill. Then came the caucus instruction for a bloc vote in favour.


And why not support the sensible compromise amendment from National MP and former policeman Chester Borrows, which would still repeal Section 59, but allow corrective smacks for the temper tantrum and hitting other children? The problem is the Greens would then lose their sovereignty. Ms Bradford would rather burn her bill. Labour will not back the amendment because it would lose the Greens and give kudos to National.


The bill’s supporters are being cynically manipulative when they claim this will cure our appalling record of child abuse. The Lilly-bings, Kahui twins and Craig Manukaus are totally different tragic social problems not cured with this piece of paper.


Richard Long is a former chief of staff for National leaders Bill English and Don Brash
 

20 March 2007 - Grey Power New Zealand - Elderly Concerned About Bradford's Bill

20 March 2007 - Grey Power New Zealand - Elderly Concerned About Bradford's Bill
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00237.htm

Elderly Concerned About Bradford's Bill

Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 3:05 pm
Press Release: Grey Power New Zealand
Grey Power: Elderly Concerned About Bradford's Bill
There is a fast growing concern amongst the majority of middle class and elderly citizens of New Zealand with regards to the “Anti Smacking Bill” bandied around Parliament recently.

“Not only are senior politicians, including the Prime Minister, unsure of the consequences of this legislation [Helen Clark’s statement, that this Bill will not alter the present situation] but Grey Power is confident that 75% or more of their membership are of the opinion that parents and or caregivers must retain the right to discipline children under their care in an appropriate way, which includes smacking, if necessary”, says Hamish Perry, Grey Power’s Law and Order, Justice spokesperson.

Grey Power definitely do not and will not condone beatings, but seriously consider this Bill will be a further stage towards the increase in violent offending as shown in a graph indicating a steady increase in violent offences following the introduction of similar “soft soap” legislation since 1970. Police records show 43,534 violent offences in 2001 with a projected 682,538 violent offences in 2010.

A public Referendum would be appropriate in this case.

ENDS
 

20 March 2007 - Feilding Herald - MP to vote no on no-smacking

20 March 2007 - Feilding Herald - MP to vote no on no-smacking
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/3999328a20379.html

MP to vote no on no-smacking
Feilding Herald | Tuesday, 20 March 2007

Rangitikei MP Simon Power will vote against Sue Bradford's "no- smacking" bill when it comes back for a third reading in Parliament in May.


He says he has spent the past two or three months getting feedback from the electorate, speaking to police, church ministers, social workers, teachers, parents and retailers.

"This is an extremely difficult issue. I have been deeply concerned about the way some of our children are treated.

"Equally, I went into politics to make the state's role smaller in families, not larger."

Mr Power says that, in the eight years he has been in Parliament, this is one of the hardest issues he has had to deal with.

"But in the end, I trust the families of Rangitikei, and not the state, to raise our children."
 

20 March - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. - Dishonesty and U-Turns in Anti-Smacking Campaign

20 March - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. - Dishonesty and U-Turns in Anti-Smacking Campaign
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00238.htm

Dishonesty and U-Turns in Anti-Smacking Campaign

Tuesday, 20 March 2007, 4:32 pm
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
20 March 2007
Dishonesty and U-Turns in Anti-Smacking Campaign

Green Party MP Sue Bradford appears willing to misrepresent the law in a desperate bid to get her private member's bill outlawing smacking, into law. On the recent TV1 programme Agenda, hosted by Lisa Owen, Sue Bradford stated:

"It's actually illegal now to smack your child".

http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Transcript17March2007/tabid/1217/Default.aspx

She made this erroneous statement in an attempt to refute the claims made by critics of her bill, that if it is enacted into law, it will criminalise good parents who smack their kids using "reasonable force" for the purpose of correction. Bradford is wrong. It is NOT illegal now for a parent to smack their children if the action does not contravene the clear guidelines and purpose ("correction") set out in s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) for the use of "reasonable force" (in "domestic discipline"). S. 59 provides a clear justification for the use of "reasonable force", in the same way the other sections of the Act provide justification for the use of "reasonable force" (e.g. in self-defence s. 48 and s. 60 Force used by Ship Captains).

The concept of an action being "justified" (or "justification") is clearly defined in s. 2 of the Act. A person is not guilty of an offence and not liable to any civil proceeding, for using "reasonable force" in circumstances specified under relevant sections of the Act. For example, when the law is properly applied, a parent cannot be convicted under s. 194 of the Crimes Act for "assault" against their child if the force used was "reasonable" in the circumstances and used for purposes set out in s. 59.

In the Family District Court in 2003, Judge Inglis QC put the matter simply:

"As a matter of law, the effect of s. 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 was that a parent's action, or that of a person in the place of a parent, in smacking a child for the purpose of correction was entirely lawful if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonable force used against a child for that purpose could not in law be categorised as physical abuse of a child."

Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has also deliberately repeated Bradford's misrepresentation of the law. She has called the s. 59 defence "ridiculous".

In setting out her support for Sue Bradford's bill that repeals s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961), prior to it going to the select committee, she told Paul Holmes on NewstalkZB on Monday June 13th 2005:

"On the other hand, to have an actual defence in the law [s. 59] where someone can go and argue they used reasonable force, is also ridiculous."


Most New Zealanders disagree with her. For over two years nation-wide polls have consistently shown that about 80% of New Zealanders want the defence for use of reasonable force contained in s. 59 retained and not repealed, the defence that Clark describes as "ridiculous".

If Bradford's bill with the amendments that have been added by the select committee, becomes law, ANY force used with one's child for the purpose of correction will be unlawful and will open up a parent or the person in the place of a parent, to being charged for committing a criminal offence, and possibly lead to a prosecution. Use of force for correction does include light smacking. One effect of Bradford's bill is clearly to ban light smacking, which both Clark and Bradford deceitfully deny. Clark has now gone on the offensive saying that she does not want smacking banned even though she opposes Chester Borrows amendment that seeks to safeguard parents from prosecution for light smacking for corrective purposes. It has now been revealed that in a live interview on Radio Rhema, before the election, Clark stated that she opposed any ban on smacking and yet Bradford has stated that her bill, which Clark supports, will ban all smacking for the purpose of corrective discipline.

Clark and Bradford claim that if the bill as currently drafted becomes law, police will not, or rarely ever pursue any formal complaints made against parents for lightly smacking their children, nor will the police lay charges for such smackings. This is not correct. The police authorities have already confirmed that if Bradford's bill becomes law, they will have to deal with ALL such complaints as criminal offences. They will be treated as domestic violence and police are bound to lay charges in cases where victims who make dishonest yet "convincing" claims in order to "dob in parents" or savage a partner in a custody dispute, for example, will need to have their allegations tested in court.

Back in 2005 the NZ Herald (14/06/05) reported,

"She [Clark] stressed [to Holmes] that the Government would not legislate to ban smacking, saying it would be a "very silly thing to do"."


In an interview with Bob McCroskie on Radio Rhema in 2005 Clark expressed strong opposition to any ban on smacking:

"...a lot of people are uncomfortable with the beating, ah, but they don't want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there's a debate to go on..."

McCoskrie: "...right ... so, you don't want to see smacking banned..."

Clark: "Absolutely not! I think you're trying to defy human nature."


Clearly she has made a complete U-turn in recent days by using her party whips (neither of whom have ever had children or even been married as National MP Maurice Williamson highlighted in the House), to force all Labour Party MPs to support Bradford's bill that Bradford herself has conceded, bans smacking.

When accused by the National Party of doing a U-turn Clark denied it by claiming that she has always opposed the banning of smacking and that Bradford's bill has nothing to do with banning smacking, but only removes the statutory defence against assault that applies to reasonable force used in correction.

The New Zealand public will not be fooled by such deceit and dishonesty.

To illustrate Bradford and Clark's error of logic consider s. 60 of the Crimes Act (1961) that provides a statutory defence for the use of reasonable force by a ship's captain.

"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."


If the statutory defence was removed by a repeal of s. 60, the use of reasonable force by ship's masters and pilots in the circumstances outlined, would be made unlawful and effectively banned. The use of "reasonable force" against a passenger(s) by a captain or an officer designated by the captain, constitutes an assault under the law, if the force used is NOT reasonable AND is not used for the reasons given in s.60. Once s. 60 is repealed the captain has no defence that takes account of his special role and responsibility to maintain order. He is limited to using verbal persuasion, non-threatening hand gestures etc. to "force" people to maintain good order. If he uses any force he is committing an unlawful act.

Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are hell-bent on stripping parents of the only defence they have in law against a spurious charge of "assault" that may be brought against them for using "reasonable force" in correction. They most definitely seek to ban smacking by legislative means, despite their claims to the contrary, and refuse to concede that lightly smacking a child for the purpose of correction will be banned if Bradford's bill becomes law.

Clark blames the media for the credibility gap created by her U-turn. Meanwhile deluded Ms Bradford is calling for millions of taxpayer dollars to be spent explaining her bill to the public for the purpose of proving, she hopes, that her bill does not ban smacking! She has already wasted millions of taxpayers dollars promoting her "ridiculous" and "silly" (words used by Clark to rubbish s. 59) bill that all sides of the debate including Bradford herself, concede will make no impact whatsoever in reducing child abuse figures in New Zealand.

ENDS
 

20 March 2007 - Gisborne Herald - Public opinion building up against Bradford’s anti-smacking bill

20 March 2007 - Gisborne Herald - Public opinion building up against Bradford’s anti-smacking bill
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article.asp?aid=8784&iid=676&sud=41

Public opinion building up against Bradford’s anti-smacking bill

by Iain Gillies
Tuesday, 20 March, 2007


Opponents of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill are optimistic they may yet stymie its intent through a groundswell of public opinion.

Parliament’s interrupted debate on the legislation has given a sense of urgency to petitioners striving for two citizens’ initiated referenda on related issues.

Co-ordinator Larry Baldock — a former United Future MP — told The Gisborne Herald the response has been "overwhelming".

"The biggest challenge is getting it in front of people," he said. "Once we do that, we’re getting a response of 80-90 percent."

The petitioners then have to gather the 300,000 signatures necessary to require a referenda, not an impossible task.

The first petition is: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" It is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.

Mr Baldock’s petition is: "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?"

Organised groups and churches are helping; some radio stations have the petitions on their website, and individuals are downloading and distributing it.

It appears that a strong public response could be evident before Parliament resumes its interrupted debate on the bill on March 28, and a possible third and final reading on May 2. By that time, there could be enough evidence to suggest that a referendum is coming.

Mr Baldock has been visiting various South Island centres this week, reinforcing his work, on a previous circuit.

"The Government cannot be allowed to get away with this arrogance of not listening to the people of New Zealand," he said.

There is no doubt that the intention behind the bill — to protect children from violence — is well-founded. Children have been abused far too much in this country. But, sadly, nobody seems to know exactly where this bill starts and ends.
 

20 March 2007 - Nanny State's fascist anti-smacking bill

20 March 2007 - Nanny State's fascist anti-smacking bill
Nanny State's fascist anti-smacking bill
http://www.solopassion.com/node/2304#comment-28914?PHPSESSID=94e5e119e422779150708c74933ce920

Submitted by Mitch on Thu, 2007-03-15 02:25.
In response to the dictatorship's intention to take away a parent's right to smack their children, a march on Parliament is being organised for March Wednesday 28th March. Reports from the media suggest that up to 80% of people are opposed to Sue Bradford's bill, and in a somewhat pleasing development, some MPs have finally started kicking up a fuss.

For more information, or to help with the organisation of this march, please e-mail antiantismacking@gmail.com.

If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking their children for correctional purposes), you now need to apply for permission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a permit for any act likely to lead to children.

If you have children, intend to have children, or are just flat out opposed to Nanny State, you MUST support this cause.

UPDATE: The March will start at 12pm at Wellington's Civic Square. NOTE: Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early. Another strong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an Auckland March. More details as they come to hand...



[ Mitch's blog | printer friendly version | 774 reads ]
[ categories: SOLO ]


Oh My! The Fascists Are Fearful!! :-)
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2007-03-20 00:31.
Just out from the Green Party:

____________________

20 March 2007

Fear on the march

Green Party MP Sue Bradford is concerned that some of those planning to join next week’s marches against her repeal of the S59 defence for assaults on children, are not being told the full story by the organizers.

“I fully support the right to free speech, but am concerned that some of those marching may be responding to needless fears whipped up about the Bill, and its consequences,” Ms Bradford says.

“My Bill does not, and will not criminalise parents who lightly smack their children. It removes a defence for what has always been a technical assault. In addition, any sensible reading of the Police guidelines on prosecution will show that Police will exercise their discretion on this matter.

“This latest round of hysteria seems to have united the Christian fundamentalists with the libertarians – who normally baulk at anyone claiming to have a ‘God-given’ mandate for anything. It may be news to the libertarians, but the state has long had a role in the home, well before my Bill first saw daylight.

“Laws on incest, on domestic violence, and the requirements around ensuring the health and education of children are all examples of the state taking action within the home, to protect the vulnerable.

“This Bill is about the rights of children to grow free up from violence. My concern is that some people will be marching against phantom fears – and not against what the Bill really means,” Ms Bradford says.

“The press release announcing the march cites current polls showing 80 per cent opposition to my Bill.’ In fact, the 80 percent figure seems derived from a 2002 Justice Ministry report that found 80 percent of New Zealanders felt smacking a child with an open hand is acceptable. In its amended form my Bill does remove the right to use reasonable force for correction – but it contains four clauses stating other contexts where reasonable parental force is permitted.

“ The press release for the march also raises fears about good parents having their babies taken away under my Bill. Let me clear about this. Unless parents were seriously abusing their children that bogey – the Politically Correct are coming for your baby – will be no more likely if my Bill is passed than it is now.

“ The march spokesperson goes on to allege that my Bill compels the Police to get involved where they have no place and leaves them no discretion. In fact, we want the Police to investigate genuine cases of child abuse, where they most certainly do have a place.

“As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds for discretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whether the public interest would be served by a prosecution,” Ms Bradford says.

_________________________________

Me: Uniting Christians and libertarians?! It unites everyone who objects to Nanny State poking her nose in when it's not justified. The present law allows for "reasonable force" before Nanny steps in. That's as it should be. Parenting is for parents.

Won't criminalise light smacking? This is 100% contrary to what Sue Bradford has said previously, particularly in response to the Chester Borrows amendment. On countless occasions she has been quite clear—ALL smacking (which she calls "assault") will be illegal:

"I remain absolutely committed to changing a law that, in its current state, allows a legal defence for parents who assault their children, when no such defence exists when we assault other adults, or animals. " (Greens' S 59 website.)

From Bradford's speech to Parliament, Feb 21:

_____________________________________________

As a result of the Committee process my original bill has been substantially amended. However, I would like to make it very clear that the bill which has come back to the House still clearly reflects my original intention, to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction.

Some supporters of repeal of s59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention, or in some way allows parents to legally still use force as punishment.

This is not the case. The intention of the new amendment is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining their children when – for example – they are acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves, or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification of the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child.

On the other hand, my Select Committee colleague from the National Party, Mr Chester Borrows, has made it very clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stages in the House aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction.

I will be fighting that amendment tooth and nail, as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against our children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning, but unfortunately, he, like others who want to somehow define reasonable force, doesn’t seem to accept or understand that this is the worst possible thing we could do.

The effect of any attempt to define reasonable force, including Mr Borrows’, is that we then have the state telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others, and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we wouldn’t consider using on adults who are actually much more able to look after themselves.

Defining acceptable force also undermines the fantastic work being done by church and community groups all over New Zealand teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that don’t involve the use of physical discipline.

Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time we gave children the same protection as we give adults, and bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence under section 59. ...

Finally, a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by police and prosecuted by courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child.

While it is true that, if this bill succeeds, use of force for correction will technically be an offence, this does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking this kind of action. Police investigate maltreatment of a child only after a complaint. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case, how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution.

Many minor and technical assaults take place in this country every day that are not investigated, and/or where no prosecution eventuates. This situation will not change with the passing of this bill.

_______________________________

Me: Police won't prosecute? The police have said unequivocally that the Guidelines will require them to arrest every parent about whom a complaint is made. Greg O'Connor, Police Association: "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear—the offendeer must be arrested. That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."
 

19 March 2007 - Questions the media will not ask concerning the Bradford/Labour anti-parenting, home-invasion bill

19 March 2007 - Questions the media will not ask concerning the Bradford/Labour anti-parenting, home-invasion bill

http://reformationtestimony.org.nz/Essaysa/Corporal/QuestionsNotAsked.html

Questions the media will not ask concerning the Bradford/Labour anti-parenting, home-invasion bill
Garnet Milne

1. If John Key will vote according to the wishes of his electorate, will he promise to repeal the anti-smacking bill if National gain power in the next election?

2. Since Helen Clark and Sue Bradford have both lied by claiming that the anti-smacking bill will not ban smacking, will Katherine Rich and the other National party social engineering stooges now vote against the bill since it is being promoted on false pretences?

3. How can Helen Clark and Sue Bradford be believed that they are concerned about children getting smacked when they both support the ultimate violence of death for the unborn? Both support abortion on demand which involves sucking and cutting up of little babies in their mothers’ wombs?

4. How can Helen Clark claim that she believes in tolerance and freedom and yet binds the consciences of her MPs by forcing them to vote for the Sue Bradford anti-parenting bill?

5. Will Helen Clark and Sue Bradford support a CYFs regime which will remove children from families, placing them in foster homes, if the parents insist on retaining the right to lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction?

6. Will Helen Clark and Sue Bradford concur that the police should be able to prosecute parents who insist on retaining the right to lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction? And will Clark and Bradford approve of such parents being fined or sent to prison for such an ‘offence’?
 

19 March 2007 - United Future NZ Party - How misleading can you get?

19 March 2007 - United Future NZ Party - How misleading can you get?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00370.htm
How misleading can you get?
Monday, 19 March 2007, 3:56 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Gordon Copeland Press Release
For Immediate Release
Monday, 19th March 2007

How misleading can you get?

United Future MP Gordon Copeland today expressed his dismay at the misleading nature of an information sheet which is being circulated by Labour MPs in reply to correspondence on Sue Bradford’s ‘Anti-Parental-Correction Bill’.

“I assume that the source of this disinformation sheet is Labour MP Russell Fairbrother’s speech to the House during the Committee stage of the Bill,” said Mr Copeland.

“It is utter rubbish. The claim is made that for over 110 years parents who have smacked their children have committed the crime of assault and those that have sent their child to its bedroom have committed the crime of kidnapping!”

“They have not. Section 59 of the current Crimes Act specifically states that a parent is “justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. The important word is “justified”. It is defined in the Crimes Act as follows: “Justified, in relation to any person, means not guilty of an offence and not liable to any civil proceeding”.”

“Therefore, as everybody in New Zealand, apart from Labour’s MPs, knows light smacking and ‘time-out’ are not presently criminal activities in New Zealand.”

“That is the whole point. Sue Bradford’s Bill removes the justification of reasonable force if used “for the purpose of correction”. Accordingly it is crystal clear that light smacking and ‘time-out’ will constitute the crime of assault in New Zealand for the first time should this misguided Bill become the law of the land.”

ENDS
 

19 March 2007 - When should Christians get political?

19 March 2007 - When should Christians get political?
http://kiwiduke.blogspot.com/2007/03/when-should-christians-get-political.html

Monday, March 19, 2007
When should Christians get political?
On one hand, Christianity is not party political. It is not beholden to the Right or to the Left of politics. The Lordship of Jesus over all cannot be summarised by a political approach. It is too big for that – and perhaps there is more than one way to conduct a society that reflects the values of the Kingdom of God.

On the other, because Jesus is Lord of all, Christians must be political in the broader sense (for a helpful article by John Dickson on this click here). We must love our neighbour in society – by engaging in the dialogue politics is – on the nature of ‘the good’ of society. What good are we seeking, and what means will best bring it?

Probably, the biggest caution to Christian involvement is that the church has an agenda far bigger than politics can encompass. It draws people from every nation, tribe and tongue and submits itself to the lordship of Christ. We will not agree on every approach to politics, and there is a danger of turning a platform of ‘All one in Christ Jesus’ into a platform of ‘All one in…’ (fill in the blank). We must give a broad margin of political freedom to Christian brothers and sisters.

However, each Christian must take responsibility to speak the truth in love – and not just in the context of church. After listening hard to our public debate, after carefully investigating the claims being made, we are all called to make judgements. To leave the field to others is to abdicate responsibility. We are not left that option.

Recently, the New Zealand parliament addressed itself to a bill that aims to remove the defence parents currently have against charges of assault for using force in disciplining their children. It provided a defence for parents who use some kind of minimum level of force to teach and to discipline their children. It was left up to juries to evaluate whether this was reasonable force or not. The defence was used successfully less than 10 times in its history.

So the proposal is to remove this defence. To say force is never legitimate discipline – on the grounds that all force is violence. And to demonstrate their commitment to this non-violent approach, they will empower the State to use force against parents who do so! Ironies abound….But the nightmare for parents who believe that in some cases some use of physical force is required to discipline their children – is that this will provide clear grounds for removal of children from their parents.

The proponents claim that this simply won’t happen. That Police will not act in this way. Unfortunately (a) the Police have not backed them up on this claim and (b) whether or not the power is used, the power is there in law ready to be used whenever community opinion shifts. Parents are expected to hope that Police will make judgement calls not to prosecute parents whilst we would expect as common sense would have no legal protection in law.

Peter Collier, assistant minister at St John’s Latimer Square in Christchurch has decided that this issue is too big to stay silent on. He has now spoken and written publicly against it. I think what he has to say is both compelling and disturbing – and would encourage others to read it and write to their politicians. In particular I’d encourage people to tell their politicians clearly that they will not vote for any party that supports this bill or that opposes the Burrows amendment (an attempt to distinguish between light smacking and abuse).

What are your thoughts?
 

19 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - The smacking ban: A dangerous law

Dear Editor,

I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you my reaction to the articles "Police prepare rules to act on smacks" that was printed in the Dominion Post on March 14, 2007 and the Gisborne Herald article (17/3) "New bill ‘unlikely’ to drastically lift police workload" of March 17, 2007.

Very truly yours

Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org

The smacking ban: A dangerous law
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law, president of the NCHR

In the Dominion Post article (14/3) "Police prepare rules to act on smacks" the New Zealand public is informed that police chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with complaints about smacking as the bill outlawing the use of physical punishment as the final vote draws nearer. The Gisborne Herald article (17/3) "New bill ‘unlikely’ to drastically lift police workload" is based on a quotation from Police Minister Annette King. The Police Minister's views are quite irrelevant because the police, prosecutors and the criminal justice system are obliged to enforce the letter of the law. Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. That is exactly what the Editor of the Swedish newspaper The Day, (Dagen) wrote in his editorial "An unnecessary law" on November 11, 1978, http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/EN_ON%D6DIG_LAGupdated.doc. Read also John McNeil's article "The Anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals" published in Challenge Weekly http://nightwatchworldnews.blogspot.com/2007/02/4181.html.

In Sweden the supporters of the Bill - the law was passed by 344 of 350 votes "to protect children from abuse" - claimed that no parent would be prosecuted under the anti-smacking law because it was promulgated in the Parents and guardianship Code. However, When I state in lectures, debates or public talks, etc., that the anti-smacking law is invoked to support the criminal charges against the parents and that the law has made parents afraid of their children, that the children intimidate their parents by threatening to report them to the police and the social services, etc., my opponents say that I am scaremongering or that I don't know what I am talking about. However, my statement is confirmed in the article "European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod -- or go to court", published in 2000. Well, there you have it. See http://www.corpun.com/eud00002.htm.

In a government-funded speech in February 2006, Joan Durrant, claimed that Sweden's smacking ban has reduced child abuse to "virtually zero". See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213. The ideological advocates, led by Sue Bradford, claim that a smacking ban will reduce child abuse in New Zealand. However, Dr. Chris Beckett's paper (2005), that bears the title: 'The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics', shows that it did not reduce child abuse nor child homicides. It is just a myth. See http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sweden.pdf.
Dr. Bob Larzelere has shown that in Sweden, trends indicate sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of seven (7). This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase. On February 28, 2007, Family First published a press release informing of a "14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban". These are the latest figures from Sweden revealing that more children were abused in Sweden in 2006 compared with the 2005 figures, according to The Swedish Daily. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm.

Since 1978 - the year before the anti-smacking Bill gained force of law - until today, thousands of parents have been reported, accused, arrested by the police, detained, tried in courts of law and sentenced to fines or prison as a result of the said law. Christian Diesen, a professor in Sweden was quoted in an article in the NZ Herald saying: "Approximately 7000 cases [of beating children] are reported each year, but only 10 per cent lead to prosecution..." It would seem that Diesen would like to see more parents prosecuted. Anyway, ten per cent gives the grand total of 700 cases per annum multiplied by 27 years, makes 18 900 prosecutions for child abuse from 1979 until 2006. The number of prosecutions may seem small, but the 7 000 reports multiplied by 27 years brings the number of families that have been affected to 189 000. In unsubstantiated cases, suspected physical abuse of children is transformed into factual administrative and mental abuse of the children and their parents.

Swedish case law bears ample evidence of the devastating effects the anti-smacking law has had on children and their parents and the Swedish society as a whole. The case with the family of seven children in the south of Sweden shows that even if the parent has been acquitted in the criminal case, the children are taken into care and placed in foster care. It therefore seems quite obvious that the Select Committee - of which Sue Bradford was a member and thus could exert undue influence - did not examine the Swedish case law that I presented at the oral hearing, otherwise Parliament would have voted against the Bill at the second reading.

For those who aren't yet acquainted with Swedish case law on smacking, here are two interesting cases: 1 - On June 17, 2000 a father was finally acquitted in the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden for physically forcing his 11-yr old son to take a shower before returning home to his mother in the Autumn of 1997. The District court found that the father had assaulted his son when he led him bodily to the shower.

2 - On May 5, 2005, the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden found a step-father guilty of abuse for slapping his 15-yr old step-daughter who had spat in his face. The step-father had been acquitted in Varberg District court in October 2004.

Prosecuting parents for physically forcing or punishing their children when words and admonitions prove to be insufficient is in no way in the best interest of children - neither in Sweden nor in New Zealand. It is, and must remain, the parents' duty and right to educate and socialise their children within the context of their family.

Who has the right to decide what is right? The politicians or the parents who know and love their children and want what is best for them? Sweden's politicians decided what was right and best for the children of Sweden, and the parents were forced to abdicate or be dragged through the criminal and administrative court systems. Today both parents and children suffer at the hands of the social bureaucracy with the right to separate children from their "abusive" parents and put them in foster homes. However, separating children from their parents constitutes the greatest abuse - both physical and emotional - that can be inflicted on children and their families.

The right to respect for private and family life is a basic Human Right. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Likewise, Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees:

"1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Sue Bradford's Bill to criminalise smacking is pure and simple state intervention and interference in the family structure, typical for regimes that aim to break down the family, undermine parental authority and make children the property of the state - to be used and abused at will by the bureaucrats in what they claim to be "the child's best interest".

I have been criticised for saying that Swedish children are badly behaved. Well, I am not the only one who finds that Swedish children are badly behaved. See for eg Roger Lord's article "The children are embarrassing Sweden" http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_children_are_embarrassing_sweden.htm, and Linda Skugge's article "We are bringing up a generation of monsters" http://www.nkmr.org/english/we_are_bringing_up_a_generation_of_monsters.htm. Also, contact the Swedish Foreign Office in Stockholm and ask them to supply you with the correspondence between the former Head of the Legal Department, Hans Corell, and the Swedish consuls in continental Europe concerning "Swedish youths' behaviour during the sport holidays in the Alps". 1991-01-22 is the date on one of Hans Corell's letters.

To normal thinking people, a well-behaved child is a joy to its parents, friends and the community at large; a badly behaved child is an abomination. The Daily Mail, March 13, 2007, has published the article, "The terror aged ten", about the 10-yr old boy who drinks, smokes pot, steals and terrorises his neighbourhood. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441819&in_page_id=1770
Some of those who have commented on the article think that the boy's parents should be made answerable for his behaviour.

Sue Bradford has extensive, personal experience of being arrested by the police, detained, tried in courts of law and sentenced to prison. It seems that she wants decent, loving, caring parents to share her experiences.

I am convinced that New Zealand has enough intelligent, level-headed politicians so they will not want their fellow citizens to have to make the same mistakes that Sweden has made. Bradford's Bill is not being progressive; it is being destructive and repressive. The French reporter, Jean-Francis Held, wrote the article "Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!"
http://www.nkmr.org/english/smacking_those_swedes_must_be_crazy.htm

I hope we will not have to read the article: "Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!"

By the way, if the New Zealand MP's want to follow Sweden's example, then I can inform you that we had a change of government in October 2006.

Gothenburg, Sweden
March 19, 2007.
 

19 March 2007 - Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law - March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm
Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford's bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be 'ratted out,' Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place - wasting valuable time and resources – and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back. The present law allowing "reasonable force" should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.

ENDS


Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/
 

March 2007 - Time to Protect Our Children From The State

March 2007 - Time to Protect Our Children From The State
http://petecollier.blogspot.com/index.html
Time to Protect Our Children From The State
A Time for Action

Dear Friends,

Since I begun public ministry 13 years ago, I have (quite deliberately!) refrained from making comments which obviously support or oppose any political party. The two main reasons for this have been a belief that largely the issues are not nearly as significant as they are made out to be by our media (Jesus rising from the dead is the real news), and also because on almost every issue a certain liberty of opinion amongst Christians appears to me to be warranted.

It is no small thing therefore that I write to express my political opinion and encourage you to at least consider sharing it or be sympathetic with those who share it. I do acknowledge Christians may in good conscience disagree with me; I hope that expressing my opinion does not create an environment where any opposing view is considered ungodly. I also acknowledge that I am not writing to express ‘the opinion of St John’s’, but merely my own opinion.

Nevertheless, I have felt convicted that there is an issue before the New Zealand government of sufficient magnitude and impact upon the lives of Christian people that I must express a political opinion. It relates to the private members Bill which has been introduced by Sue Bradford which has become known as the Anti-Smacking Bill.

Let me explain my reasons for opposing this Bill.

As a Christian person I try to pray at least weekly for the Prime Minister of New Zealand and all those in authority – particularly in government – in our country, that they will govern in such a way that Christian people can ‘live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness’. The Bible encourages Christians to do this in 1 Timothy 2:2. What this means is that I pray that the government will make decisions that Christians are able to submit in good conscience without having to defy the government’s authority. That is what is meant by living ‘quiet’ lives: it is not talking about Christians turning their music down low; rather it speaks of Christians not having to defy their authorities in order to obey God.

It is my belief that this change in the law will make it impossible for some Christians to live ‘quiet’ lives in all godliness and holiness any longer. For some Christians, they will in all good conscience have to defy the laws of the country, believing in good conscience the Bible so urges them to discipline their children with a smack if necessary that it would be unloving to do so; and they must obey God and not human authorities at this point. This will put them in breach of the law, and put them in danger of things like having a criminal record for abuse against children, having their children taken off them and/or imprisonment. In short, it enables the state to imprison Christians for doing what they believe is godly.

There is clearly some disagreement over whether smacking to discipline is harmful or beneficial, and certainly some Christian parents do not believe it is beneficial to use force to discipline. The argument usually is ‘hitting is always wrong’; ‘it is teaches children to use violence’, etc. Let me explain briefly therefore why some Christians (me included) believe smacking to discipline their child is actually what God encourages them to do as loving parents.

Christian parents are encouraged to raise their children ‘in the training and instruction of the Lord’ – Ephesians 6:4. This clearly involves teaching the information about the Christian faith, but clearly it involves far more than that too. It involves ‘training’. There is a book in the Old Testament, the Book of Proverbs, which is an entire book from a father to his son giving him wise advice about how to live his life. Several times the writer makes the point that ignoring discipline is foolish, and can lead to poverty and shame, while heeding discipline can lead to honour (13:18). The question then comes about how to teach a child discipline. Here the writer of proverbs says that to spare a child physical force to discipline actually spoils a child, while a parent who loves their child will be careful to discipline him. That is, they won’t randomly ‘use violence’. Rather, they will use physical force to discipline their child in exactly the same way a coach will encourage physical hardship to discipline a sportsperson. The writer of the proverbs acknowledges that it is easier for a parent to avoid doing this but that it won’t harm the child nearly as much as neglecting to do it.

The picture proverbs gives then, is clear. Using physical force to train a child teaches them how to appropriately relate to authorities. It teaches them that to defy authority will ultimately have physical consequences, and will discourage them from foolishly thinking they can do things their way and get away with it without consequences. This has benefit for their relationship to all authorities (which is actually a very good thing for governments!), including God. Proverbs 23:14 says, ‘Punish with the rod and save his soul from death’. These words are not to be taken precisely as a guaranteed formula – here is how to ensure your child goes to heaven. However, implied in the verse is that to train your child that rebelling against authorities brings punishment will be helpful in encouraging them to not rebel against God. In other words, it is part of ‘training and instruction in the Lord’. For some Christians, then, to avoid using physical force to discipline their child is not a negotiable; for them, it would be unloving and to abuse their children by neglect if they were not to be able to use force to discipline their child.

Sue Bradford’s Bill is aimed at ruling out the use of force to discipline a child. Force will be able to be used when a child is in danger, but not for discipline. The current amendment to the Bill of Chester Borrows before the House is trying to make it clear that using force to discipline is acceptable, and tries to define what is acceptable force (only an open hand for a smack). Currently it is believed the Borrows amendment will pass. The law will therefore make it illegal for parents to use force to discipline their children and some Christian parents will therefore be breaking the law to do what before God they believe is loving. The State is therefore given the power to imprison them and take their children off them.

There is discussion as to whether or not the law change which Sue Bradford is suggesting will result in this. However, I believe it is naïve to think otherwise. It may not happen the moment the Bill is passed; but more likely it will happen a generation after the Bill is passed. That changes in legislation work this way can be seen in the changes to laws about corporal punishment in schools. That law was changed 20 years ago. It would have been unthinkable at the time to close schools where all the parents had agreed that their children could receive corporal punishment. Yet today two schools with otherwise excellent reputations face closure because of this law change. When Sue Bradford was asked about what should happen in this situation she simply said, ‘I believe the law should be upheld.’ It is naïve to think that in 20 years time from now when a parent is charged with assault for smacking their child that exactly the same thing won’t be said: ‘The law should be upheld’.

There is also discussion as to whether or not the police will bother to prosecute parents who smack their children to discipline them. Those promoting the Bill are insisting they will not. We ought not assume they are not being deceptive. In the same week they have said the Bill will make smacking illegal but that it is not an anti-smacking Bill. Very significantly, the police have said they will have to investigate any claim that is made. And while they may not have the time to investigate these claims, it is more likely that Child Youth and Family Services will. They are not required to acquire as much burden of proof as the police in order to act on reported child abuse. It is far too important an issue to simply trust the lame reassurances of those who have introduced the Bill that parents will not in time be criminalized. The Bill has been introduced quite deliberately to make the use of physical force to discipline children illegal.

In response to letters I have sent to Members of Parliament, some members have sent me an article titled, ‘It has always been illegal’. The thrust of this article is that smacking a child has always constituted assault and putting children in timeout has always constituted kidnapping. It has only been the common sense of the police that has meant that people have not been charged with assault or kidnapping. This argument to me seems deceitful, however. If smacking is already a crime, then the law does not need to be changed – rather police behaviour needs to be addressed. The fact is that it is not currently illegal. The police know that Section 59 provides a defence for parents who smack children and so they would be wasting their time to bring them to court. Its repeal will mean that parents smacking to discipline their children will have no such protection and so police would have more reason to act on complaints about smacking.

This then raises another very important issue which the Christian understanding of humans gives very important insight. It is that humans in positions of power cannot necessarily be trusted. For me personally, I am more prepared to trust that parents will be eager to treat their own children with respect than I am to trust that government officials respect parents. There may be all sorts of reasons why government officials would not respect the rights of parents (after all, the government is passing the current bill against the majority of parental opinion). On the other hand, parents look after their children for hours on end, year in year out and without pay. This shows a love for their children which state officials cannot match.

These two reasons, then, make me very anxious about the legislation: Christians seeking to live godly lives will be breaking the law and the government officials cannot be trusted to treat them fairly.

But there are further reasons also.

The legislation shows dramatic hypocrisy from the state which is quite terrifying. The state reserves the right to use force to exercise its authority, yet it denies parents this right. If the government truly believed that it was wrong to use reasonable force then it would be consistent and first and foremost refrain from using reasonable force itself. It will abolish the police force and replace it with a counseling service! The state is not living by its own rules, which is terrifying (police have been given more powers recently to use Tazar guns). If it truly believed that ‘a strong message needs to be sent that it is not right to hit anyone’, then first and foremost the state ought to rule out using force itself.

Some argue that it is wrong that the state doesn’t protect small children from the assault which it protects adults. It is suggested that hitting a child is always violent and therefore it is always wrong. We see the complete nonsense of this position on the sporting field. To insist that always hitting a person constitutes assault would mean that rugby coaches would not be able to demonstrate how to tackle. Nor would police be able to use force to arrest anybody. Further, the state is again being hypocritical at this point. If it wishes to give children equal rights before the state, then children must be given the vote first. This is clearly not happening which shows further hypocrisy of the state.

A particular inconsistency with the Bradford Bill is the fact that it permits using ‘reasonable force’ when children are in danger and several other situations. This acknowledges (to use the inflammatory language of some) that violence is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances. The issue then is not that ‘violence’ is unacceptable. Rather the distinction is that it is quite legitimate – even necessary - to prevent harmful behaviour, but it is illegitimate to be used to train in non-harmful behaviour. The ‘splitting hairs’ nature of this distinction is why advocates of this Bill say one minute it will make smacking illegal and the next that it won’t. (If they can’t work out a straight answer to the question of smacking, how will parents know what to do at 3am in the morning?) To make it possible for parents to be made criminals and have their children removed from them on the basis of such a fine distinction is again to give frightening power to the state. After all – who will decide if the child was putting their hand in the toaster or simply banging the toaster? Most likely, a CYFS worker. Even in todays newspaper (18/03/07), strong criticisms are being made about the mishandling of matters by the CYFS; to hand this department the decision of whether or not a child should remain with their parents simply on the basis of whether or not they smack to discipline their child is to give them a responsibility far beyond their ability to cope.

Of course the ultimate hypocrisy in the state insisting it is defending the rights of children by saying it is not right to hit a child is that the state also says it is perfectly acceptable to kill a child, provided they are inside a mothers womb. The only difference is the age of the child. One day a child can be killed on a whim, the next it is not allowed to be smacked for disciplinary purposes. The hypocrisy of the state to condemn parents who smack at this point is breathtaking.

Whether or not a person agrees with children being disciplined by smacking, I believe they ought to share these grave concerns about the powers the state is giving itself. In the end it legalizes a far greater child abuse than smacking: that of taking parents off children who smack their children to discipline. To give themselves the power to do this under the mistaken banner of ‘acting on child abuse’ ought to cause fear in all citizens. A proven way to act on child abuse is to reduce substance abuse; if the state was serious about using legislation to prevent child abuse, it would again the legal age of drinking. Instead it has done the opposite. Other issues such as family breakdown are also far more related to child abuse; again, the government could make marriage legislation tighter if it was serious about legislating to help reduce child abuse. Instead, all it is doing is making criminals of good parents.

Some disagree with this and say section 59 can be used as an escape clause for abusive parents. It needs to be kept in mind that Section 59 has only been used to vindicate parents less than 10 times in total. We would be unwise to simply conclude the force used was ‘unreasonable’ in these few cases. Section 59 has protected untold numbers of children from having their parents unfairly prosecuted or suffer the agony of dangerous allegations.

There are further reasons however why I believe smacking as a means of discipline ought not be outlawed.

The first is the educative purpose of the law. While those in favour of this legislation know that for a time at least parents may not be prosecuted for smacking their children to discipline them, they also know that the law serves an educative purpose as well as a legislative one. That is, it will no longer be legal to teach people to smack their children in order to discipline them; at the same time, all information given to parents about disciplining children will speak against smacking them for disciplinary purposes. This is why legislation that is passed in one generation in controversial circumstances is often quietly agreed to by the next generation. Opposing views become illegal. It will become harder to teach what the Bible says about using physical force to discipline.

Even leaving the Bible aside, in the case of smacking, it could easily be argued that it is not in the best interests of New Zealand to suppress education about smacking. Where smacking has been banned in Sweden, it has been accompanied by an increase in violence against children. I understand Otago University has conducted a study that shows that smacking may produce better outcomes in children; some suggest it actually prevents adults from resorting to damaging abuse. While no study is perfect, and evidence could be used the other way, the current legislation removes the right of the parent to determine what they believe is best for the child. I would argue a parent has a right to chose how they wish to train their child as they love their child more than the state does. Furthermore, to take this right away from them actually discourages parents from taking responsibility for their children which in fact will ultimately be more harmful for society. A far better approach to reducing child abuse would be to encourage parents to take responsibility for their children by avoiding substance abuse, for example.

Parents who do abuse their power are in exactly the same position before the law as police who abuse citizens; there is legislation to deal with them. There is clearly a difference between a policeman who legitimately uses force to enforce the rule of law and a policeman who abuses citizens in enforcing the law. Exactly the same difference can be observed between parents who smack their children and parents who abuse their children.

This leads to the final factor which has encouraged me to ‘go political’ over this issue, which is the ability of the New Zealand parliamentary system to enforce legislation which is clearly against prevailing opinion. This is clear evidence of the state exerting its authority over citizens. It is an alarming trend to see much legislation being passed which is opposed by more than three quarters of the ‘electorate’. This has led me to do some (fairly basic research) into the political system. As far as I can see, voters in the MMP system do not have a great deal of power; legislation can frequently be passed which most disagree with. The only hope restraining the state and the legislation it is enforcing is to not vote for those who bring in the legislation at the next election. As I write, the Sue Bradford Bill has not been passed but it is assumed that it will. It seems to me that the only recourse that is left to me is to write to all the members of parliament who are intending to pass the Bill that I will not vote for them if they pass it, or their party if it votes for it as a block; and also that I will be discouraging people from voting for them.
That may be the last hope I have to resist the state from taking away my child.

In my nearly twenty years as an eligible voter, there has not been a political issue of anywhere near this magnitude. For the first time that I am aware of, godliness will be made illegal. For this reason, I am therefore prepared to support any person or party who seek to repeal it and I am prepared to oppose any person or party which endorses it.

Therefore, this week I have written to all the Members of Parliament to tell them how I will vote and that I will be encouraging others to do the same.

Those who have supported this Bill are:
The Labour Party
The Greens Party
The Maori Party
2 Members of New Zealand First
Jim Anderton
Peter Dunne

Those who have opposed the Bill have been:
ACT
National (a few national members have voted in support of the Bill)
2 United Future members
4 members of New Zealand First.

I have encouraged these members to adopt as policy the repeal of the Sue Bradford Bill at the next election (assuming it will pass).

I would encourage you to do the same, and to carry through on your promise at the next election.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Peter Collier

Posted by Peter Collier at 9:09 PM 2 comments



Letter to The Press 16/03/07
Dear Sir,

The proposed Bradford legislation has not only revealed attitudes about children in New Zealand. It has also revealed the demeaning and hypocritical attitudes of the powerful elite behind such legislation. ‘It is only through [seemingly invasive] legislation that real social changes have .. become embedded in society’ writes Raf Manji. In other words, don’t worry about having to convince people with persuasive arguments; completely ignore what the citizens are saying. Instead, make it possible to lock people up and forcibly take their children off you them for disagreeing with you. Then self-righteously and patronizingly complete the hypocrisy by telling them to not be lazy parents, to listen better and to not use violence.

I’ll accept the state’s right to tell me to listen instead of using reasonable force when the state gives up its right to use reasonable force, preferring instead to only ever listen more carefully. The Bradford Bill has created a new form of violence in our society: citizen abuse. Victims have only one avenue of support: to never again vote for a person or party that has perpetrated such abuse.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Collier
 

19 March 2007 - Borrows Confident Of Smacking Support

19 March 2007 - Borrows Confident Of Smacking Support
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00294.htm
Borrows Confident Of Smacking Support
Monday, 19 March 2007, 8:38 am
Article: Agenda
BORROWS

National MP Chester Borrows says he is confident his amendment to Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill will gain the support of Parliament.


Speaking on TVOne’s Agenda programme, Mr Borrows was confident his amendment bill would pass.


When asked if he thought he had the support to get his bill through the House, Mr Borrows replied;


“Yeah I think we can, it depends on what support we get and who’s prepared to stand up and be counted.”


He suggested Prime Minister Helen Clark should act on her 2005 election comments and vote for the bill.


“If the PM really wants to achieve what she said in 2005 she’ll be voting for my amendment, and not Sue’s [Bradford] bill.”
 

17 March 2007 - The Press - Being smacked no big deal - poll

17 March 2007 - The Press - Being smacked no big deal - poll
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3995317a19719.html
Being smacked no big deal - poll
The Press | Saturday, 17 March 2007


RON KITCHEN
An overwhelming majority of people smacked as a child report that the discipline had no lasting emotional impact, according to a special Press website poll

The continuing poll on www. press.co.nz showed that by Monday lunchtime, some 70 per cent of the 1500 respondents had been occasionally smacked by their parents and felt it was "no big deal".

Just 4% said they were occasionally smacked and really resented it.

About 21% said they were smacked hard and never thought about it, while around 5% said they were smacked hard and the trauma was still there.

The findings of the poll were borne out by a large number of emails sent to www. press.co.nz. And many criticise the anti-smacking legislation now before Parliament.

YOUR FEEDBACK

We 5 boys were "smacked hard", stock whip and razor strop. There are no criminals amongst us and we all respect people in authority even to this day. If this Bill is passed, then in line with the Treaty of Waitangi, we can take a retrospective claim against the Government for damages, yeah right. Does one have to have 72 convictions against one to get any Bill through Parliament.
LES HIBBARD

Both my husband and I were smacked as children, it was no big deal. A smack never hurt anyone, except the child's pride. There is a big difference between giving a child a smack, and "beating them up". The problem with a lot of kids today is that there is no discipline in the home, therefore no boundaries. Thats why there are kids today, out of control and what are they going to be like as adults? If we were starting out again, we would think twice about having children.
SUZANNE

My parents were diligent in teaching me right from wrong and how to grow up to be a responsible member or society with respect for the elderly and for others. The occasional hard smack I received was for mainly disobedience, lying, or any form of dishonesty. This proved to me that my parents really loved and cared about me, and I am extremely grateful that I have had parents who did not let me go my own way. These qualities that I was taught of love and respect we have passed on to our own children who have their own children now and who come and thank us for the way we taught them even with the occasional smack. Smacking did more good than harm and I would hate to see it outlawed. What kind of a rebellious generation would be looking after us in our old age then??
NEVILLE STOKES

I am one of those people who received appropriate smacking as a child from my parents and am not in the slightest concerned about it. Boarding school was another story, because there was not the same level of love for me as an individual, and so at times the smacking felt like it had an element of injustice in it. Certainly did not kill me though. I have raised 3 kids, all at university now. One doing a phd, another in medical school. Third just started her B Coms. All have been smacked and all are turning out balanced, contributing, functional adults. I am rightly proud of my kids and would not have it any other way!
ANDREW

I was smacked as a child. It did me no harm, and definitely acted as a deterrent to me misbehaving. My mother said she disciplined me because she loved me and administered the smack in a self controlled calm way. It is a quick, simple, effective form of punishment. I read in the press that Sue Bradford's daughter was yelled at when correction was required. What would you prefer - a household where everyone one is yelling verbal abuse at each other or a peaceful house where the children are behaving (most of the time!)? I'm not saying that smacking is the only way to discipline our children. Taking the cellphone away form our eldest daughter works as well!
PAUL

Careful calm smacking is the quickest, and most effective way to teach a child that painful consequences can ensue upon certain proscribed acts. This method is no longer used once an action's consequences can be explained and conceived by the child when older. If the young child learns to ignore prohibitions with impunity, then he or she carries on doing whatever they want until they find that their body is taken in hand by physical force by another authority, the Police and court system. We now see the terrible consequences of our young people being unable to consider the consequences of their actions or exercising self-control. Many parents now are not mature enough themselves to smack judiciously and wisely, but making those who are mature enough liable for prosecution will further exacerbate the situation, and give the children who need firm authority the most just the weapon they need to triumph against their first experience of authority.
THE JENKS

We strongly oppose the anti smacking bill of Sue Bradford Children need to be corrected. Its a parents duty.
PETER AND MARIA D'SOUZA

I think the biggest issue inside this debate is that children are incapable of reasoned actions and consequene awareness. They need to learn at an early age that immediate obedience is required of parents, grand parents, school teachers. Why? because in a life threatening or dangerous situation, when a command is given for that child's safety, the trained child will respond and be safe. The child who is accustomed to negotiation and debate will not respond quickly enough. The amount of times I have seen parents giving instructions, to be completely ignored is quite frightening. The concern of some, for the safety of a few, will have the long term effect of placing even more young lives in danger. And the abusers of children are not , nor ever have been the parents who use loving physical punishment.
BRUCE JOSLEN

I think the no smacking bill is silly. It will not stop the people that are beating their kids with fists etc, and their are laws to deal with that if a child is found to have been beaten. I was smacked as a kid, it help reinforce the fact that i did wrong. Time out does not work, it would have had not impact on me (or my sister). The smacking was never excessive. But if a kid starts pulling items off the shop shelves on to the floor, a parent should be able to give a kid a short smack with a verbal correction like "no". There are very few people that were given smacks as kids that are now murderers and rapists. Most of our current serious criminals either had no discipline or are the ones that were beaten very badly. If this bill passes we will in 7 to 15 years see a rise in youth crime.
LANCE McCAUGHAN

i am a 70 year old who was disciplined as a child at home and at school if and when i deserved it. it certainly did me no harm but taught me to respect my elders and other peoples property. this respect carried through to my working life and served me well with regard to promotion. it also promoted respect from those people in my charge. this lack of respect is the biggest problem the young people of today face. it is the reason why there is such a big problem with youth crime and lawlessness. this all started in the schools many years ago when teachers taught their charges that they had individual rights and to stand up to thier parents if they tried to discipline them. so now we are all paying for that ill discipline fostered by the education system. it is time the government bought back Compulsory Military Training for all 18year olds female and male. this teachs you to respect and bond with your compatriots, to work as a team and to always have the others back. children need discipline to do well in thier future and for so many that, even now, is to late.
PHIL MITCHELL

My wife and I were occasionly smacked and no big deal.
THE DORWARDS

Sue Bradford asserts that discipling children by smacking is a violent act committed generally when the parent is angry. She confesses that she shouted at her own children and I would suggest that such shouting is as much if not more of an act of angry abuse as any smack. The things that stay with us through life are far more likely to be the vicious things said by parents and teachers rather than any smack. My parents will have given me a deserved smack as a child but I do not recall these incidents. I do remember, however, the belittling things said by my parents and my teachers. It would be interesting if The Press could go into archives and remind readers of the times when Sue Bradford as professional protester spent much of her time hurling abuse at the police and politicians. It is hypocritical to see her setting herself up as some type of model mother of the nation.
PETER HIND

Despite the latest comments by Helan, Sue and Company that they are not banning smacking, the fact is they are and if the Police, Welfare or whoever take action you are gone. I was a long serving Police Officer, just a gentle push or even shouting at a person is assault if they believe they are in danger of harm. Parents have no defence apart from the discretion of the prosecuting authority. Remember the hysteria over repressed memories and the sexual abuse thing, SIPS were in there grabbing kids and breaking up families living out their own bad experiences. Lock up the abusers but leave our families alone Helen and Sue!
MAURICE ATKINSON

Here are my views; Sue Bradfords bill is just what Helen said last year on Shine TV, "against human nature" (shame she has changed her mind, and now it is not against human nature! this woman speaks with a forked tongue) children need clear boundaries, discipline, and love. an occasional smack is fine. Labour the Greens and the Maori Party have got it completely wrong. Issues like this should not be decided in such a political way, rather the best interests of the family and society should come before the interests of politicians. I am disgusted that they think they have the rigth to reach into peoples homes like this.
JACK STUART

Thanks for an opportunity to comment. I am very uncomfortable with this bill being raced through. I believe it will arrive as a very unclear bill. And will criminalise many parents whose children are not in danger. Even if not prosecuted, they will be criminals. In testing and applying this bill, it will tie up police and CYF resources, potentially to an unreasonable degree. CYF services are already overstrained. It's not that I endorse smacking as a child-rearing tactic. I do not like the underlying assumption that force is okay. Yet, - "Section 59' DOES NOT give shelter for abuse of children; even if some cases defended under this have leaned towards "letting off" parents. I believe the current bill has been badly crafted, and is en route to becoming a bad piece of legislation. Current legislation is adequate and could be utilised better. I think it would be much better to spend some time in bringing the awareness of the people of New Zealand towards the philosophy underlying this bill, and to have a more reasonable process, for enacting a better bill.
BETH GARVEY
 

17 March 2007 - New Zealand Herald - Bradford's opponents taking to city streets

17 March 2007 - New Zealand Herald - Bradford's opponents taking to city streets

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00019074-4A17-15FA-80E083027AF10130

Bradford's opponents taking to city streets

Street marches are being planned around the country in a bid to turn the tide against the bill that would prevent parents from using reasonable force to discipline their children.
And pulpit messages against the anti-smacking bill, or at least urging church members to have their say, are expected to be delivered tomorrow.

Parliamentary debate stalled on Green MP Sue Bradford's bill on Wednesday night, and will resume on March 28.

The bill - presented by opponents as a ban on smacking, a description rejected by its supporters - has polarised the community but appears likely to become law.

A posting on the Solo website, founded by right-wing political commentator Lindsay Perigo, advertises a march to Parliament on the day of the bill's next debate.

Bob McCoskrie, national director of the Families First lobby group, which opposes the legislation, said yesterday that street marches in main centres were among moves to try to persuade MPs to vote against the Bradford bill.


"We've had lots of calls for a street march and we are considering that. That's from around the country."

Families First was negotiating with the author of the Solo posting and might join forces to organise marches in Auckland and other cities.

"We're looking at simultaneous marches on the 28th. We need to get the pressure on early. There is huge energy. In just about every centre, we know of people itching to sign the petition."

Two petitions are running on the issue, one of which asks if smacking as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence. They will force a national referendum if they gain about 303,000 signatures.

Mr McCoskrie said other strategies being used were to lobby Labour MPs who "understand family life and what it's like to be a parent", asking them to demand from their caucus the freedom of a conscience vote in Parliament.

"We are fundraising to put the petition forms in major daily newspapers so that people have easier access to them because we are being inundated with inquiries as to how people can get access to the forms."

Destiny Church spokesman Richard Lewis said copies of the petitions were in its churches. Destiny strongly endorsed it, and members were signing.

He said church leaders had frequently spoken to members about the bill, which the church opposed.

Geoff Macpherson, a Christchurch pastor in the Grace Presbyterian Church - which told MPs last year it opposed the bill because it "seeks to override our God-given responsibilities" - said yesterday that he expected to speak about it at church tomorrow but members were free to make up their own minds about the legislation.

"I think on Sunday I will be encouraging people to be aware they can get involved in the process and they should think about contacting their MP or writing an email.
 

17 March 2007 - The Southland Times - Southerners speak out against bill

17 March 2007 - The Southland Times - Southerners speak out against bill

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/3995372a6011.html
Southerners speak out against bill
By STAFF REPORTERS

An overwhelming majority of southerners are opposed to a private member's bill that could outlaw smacking as a means of disciplining children.

Most parents and children questioned yesterday by The Southland Times spoke against Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, saying smacking was a necessary form of corrective behaviour.

But there was a limit to how far parents could go, they said.

One of the children spoken to, West Gore Primary School pupil Corina MacKenzie, 10, felt parents should not be allowed to smack children all the time – "just sometimes when they are really bad".

Her mother Karen MacKenzie believed enforcing the law under the changes would be hard on police.

"Who's to say what a light smack is?" The guidelines were not clear.

Invercargill's Cameron Forde, 8 said : "I hate it (smacking)." Cameron said his mother often sent him and his siblings outside to play instead of smacking.

However, Cameron's dad Phil took a different view. " I think the idea of the Government being concerned about it (smacking) is good but to me it's another instance of the Government telling New Zealanders what to do." Meanwhile, a petition has been circulating in Queenstown over the past few days calling for a referendum on whether smacking should be a criminal offence.

The petition is the initiative of former United Future MP Larry Baldock. He spoke in Queenstown last night and will speak in Roxburgh tonight.

Otago MP Jacqui Dean said people had arrived in her office "shaking with rage" over the proposed new smacking legislation.

People were just starting to get their heads around the possibility of "CYF delving into our lives".

National Party deputy leader Bill English said the people pushing the bill had implied that anyone opposed to it was in favour of violence against children. "If I said I'd smacked one of my kids after breakfast, they (police) would ask me if I did it for correction and if I did I would be prosecuted for assault."
 

15 March 2007: from 3 March 2007 blog - Investigate Magazine June 2006 - THE SMACKING DEBATE: QC'S OPINIONS

http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/03/the_smacking_de.html

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

THE SMACKING DEBATE: QC'S OPINIONS

INTRO: It is now a matter of public record that repealing s59 of the Crimes Act will make parents technically guilty of assault if they smack their children, but Investigate has discovered something even the Bill's supporters hadn't considered: it will also open parents to prosecution if they physically put a child into time out. IAN WISHART interviewed leading Queens Counsel about the legal dangers of the anti-smacking Bill:

To say it is shaping up as one of the 'social engineering' fights of the Government's third term would be an understatement. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford is pushing for a simple repeal of s59, the clause that gives parents a defence of "reasonable force" for the purposes of disciplining a child's behaviour.

In a letter to the organization Family Integrity last year, police headquarters not only confirmed that even a simple smack would be an assault, but suggested that because the Crimes Act already has increased penalties for crimes against children, an assault on a child would be more serious than an assault on an adult, in police eyes.

But while commentators on both sides of the divide have discussed whether police would lay charges or not, no one has explored whether other forms of discipline could also run foul of the proposed new law.

To explore that specific issue, we asked a number of top QCs to comment on whether a parent who carried or dragged a resistant child to 'time out' would also be breaking the law:


STUART GRIEVE, QC:

I would be opposed to the [repeal of s59] because I think that the provision works entirely adequately as it is. If one puts political correctness to one side, and just deals with these cases on an objective and pragmatic basis, the law has stood the test of time and I would have thought most reasonable people would know full well when the line is crossed between reasonable discipline on the one hand, and crossing that line on the other.

So I would be opposed to it, and as one looks at the test now it is left to a jury to determine reasonableness. And being a fan of jury trials anyway, and being a fan of the commonsense of juries, that's where I would leave it.


Q: What if a parent forcibly manhandles a 7 year old to another room to enforce time out. In your experience, could that be a prima facie assault?

A: Unquestionably! Not under the present statute of course, but those protections aside any unwanted touching, even threat of touching, can be an assault. It is so defined in the Crimes Act.

Q: What about the act of shutting a child in a bedroom or a garage for ten minutes to calm down. If the protection of reasonable force is removed, could that open a parent up to punishment for forcible detention?

A: Could do, I'd have to look at that more closely because that is a technical question, but it could do. If you remove the protection then you're left with a child being a normal individual, and it would be no different from doing that to some stranger, I suppose.

Q: What advice would you give to law makers?

A: My advice would be 'don't repeal it'. I would be asking for examples where it doesn't work well, or where it hasn't worked.

Q: Do you have a fear that it could be used in marital break-ups, or as a reason to get CYFS involved in a family?

A: Well it could do. Although I don't pretend to be a family lawyer I'm well aware of the fact that in these situations as you describe them, frequently false allegations are leveled, generally by women against males, and allegations of sexual abuse and that sort of thing in order to win custody battles and so forth. This will simply give them more ammunition.


GRANT ILLINGWORTH, QC

The thing that tends to mask the situation in the NZ environment is the fact that questions of assault as far as civil law are concerned have become less prominent because of the accident compensation legislation. As you will be aware, under the ACC legislation you can't generally sue someone for personal injury caused by accident, and accident is widely defined to include situations in which you're assaulted by somebody. So in New Zealand, even serious assaults don't get before the courts except in quite unusual
situations as a matter of civil liability.

Now, s59 is dealing only with criminal liability, and I suspect it is a lot more complicated than it appears on the surface, because taking away a criminal law defence doesn't necessarily change the underlying civil law principles. So there are two layers that must be considered. One is the criminal layer, the other is the civil layer. And in order to sort that situation one would have to give it quite a bit of thought and work through the principles.

But to confine the analysis to the criminal law only, if you simply take away a defence of reasonable force then every touching of another person becomes an assault, and you then open up a vast area of potentially criminal conduct. You criminalize a whole lot of conduct which to normal people would be utterly ridiculous to criminalize in relation to the way you treat your kids.

So I think it is a very important step, and I think it is something that has serious, wide-ranging implications and something that has to be considered very very carefully indeed.

I think you do have to distinguish between civil and criminal. Conduct that is not regarded as criminal, or not pursued and charged as criminal, can be taken into account even now in a Family Court context. It doesn't really matter to the Family Court whether you characterise something as criminal or not criminal, it's a question of whether it represents proper treatment of the child. It's going to the fundamental question of what is for the welfare of the child, what is in the child's best interests. They're looking at the situation through a different legal telescope.

I think the real problem is that arguably almost every form of physical contact with your children becomes an assault as a matter of the criminal law. If you take away s59, that's the issue.

And if the child uses force against you, what force can you use against the child? That's the real crunch issue. There may be lots of situations in which, very appropriately, a parent should avoid using force because it is unnecessary to do so. But there are some situations in which it is necessary and those situations would not necessarily fall within s48, which is the self defence provision.

That's one area in which use of force in self defence and defence of another is justified and will remain justified. But if you think about it, children can use force against their parents, and the parents won't be able to use force against the children, unless it is self defence.

S48 says 'Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as in the circumstances he believes them to be it is reasonable to use.' But it's got to be in the defence of himself or another. It can't simply be a child doing something naughty which involves the use of force, and preventing the child - for example - smashing up the living room.

It's not the defence of yourself or the defence of another. If your child goes beserk and starts smashing the furniture you might not be allowed to touch him. And if that's the result of revoking s59 - that you're exposed to a criminal charge of assault if you restrain a child in those circumstances, then that's completely nuts.

Q: Advice to the legislators as they consider this?

A: Obviously it will go to a select committee and they'll have the task of going through the various scenarios that could arise if this measure is adopted. That's the appropriate process, and the normal process when an important change is being considered.

But I think from my own part, having given it only a relatively short period of consideration, that simply to wipe out s59 could create some situations which are completely undesirable.


NICK DAVIDSON, QC

Q: The police are already on record as saying any smack would be a prima facie assault. Presumably that means that any physical contact for the purposes of discipline, such as a mother taking her child by the arm and forcing him into time out, would also be a prima facie assault?

A: Theoretically that must be right. It would come down to an exercise of discretion. But there could be savings in the legislation, such as safety of the child or removing a child from harm's way. Where it get's sticky is the very point you mentioned: if someone actually picks up a child and carts them off, because the difference between that and admonishing them, or hitting them, is so marginal as a matter of law I think it can only be dealt with by discretion. I think it's a very significant point.

Someone who will simply not leave a situation where the parents are sitting outside in the car, waiting for the child to get in the car, and having difficulties because the child is refusing to get in the car, what's a parent supposed to do? Leave the child on the side of the road, or pick them up and physically put them in the car?

Now if that's not for their care and protection, what is it? There's no defence to it.

And I think there's a failure to recognize the difference between smacking as such, and physically taking, with some force, children - because they can be quite big at 11 or 12 and you might have to deal with them in that way.

To me the question is, if you cannot discipline a child physically, you remove the defence to what is otherwise an assault, the physical handling of a child of itself is not necessarily a discipline and would be treated like any other contact between two people. But in a relationship between parent and child there will often have to be physical interventions.

Now you could not possibly classify an assault as a deliberate application of force to a child, where that is to save the child, or take it to safety. You could not in my view possibly treat that as an assault where the child, for the child's own sake, should be removed from one place to another. Where a child is out of control, for example.

So I think there must become a series of defences available where what is done is not for the purposes of inflicting force, but is a warrant to apply force for reasons which are for the good of the child.

Now we don't really have that available to us in law, but if you take assault as an example: you step in to assault someone else to defend someone - that's defence of another, and that's a defence. You step in to save someone from committing suicide, that's a defence. You step in to save someone from any act of self-harm, or the danger of walking across a road against traffic - that's a defence.

The reason it's a defence is that it's not an intentional application of force except by the warrant that you have to do so for the good of that person. Now I think that will become the proper test in law - that where the force is applied for the good of that child, not as a discipline but in order to protect the child in some way, or deal with the child where the child is out of control, but not to inflict force for the sake of that, is the distinction to be drawn as a matter of law.

Q: Grant Illingworth feels that where there are going to be issues is where your child is out of control - not necessarily a danger to themselves or anyone else - but nevertheless -

A: Impossible to control!

Q: .impossible.

A: I think that is exactly the point! The time out situation is the key, because if you narrow down all the examples that you mention, it comes down to this proposition: to protect the child? Absolute defence. To discipline the child? No. To take the child out of a situation where it is causing pandemonium? Questionable, because we don't have a marked defence on the statute for that purpose. That's why I think the law will develop a defence that, for the sake of the child as much as for the whole family, the child
is removed from a situation where the child for example is just screaming its head off and is just so out of control they're at a risk of harm.

The example you give, of trashing a house, is much more difficult, because the law in my view must allow a colour of right to prevent anyone doing that. You don't have to stand by and watch your house being trashed by anybody. I think you're entitled to protect your property, protect your person. What you can't do is go beyond the bounds of what the law allows.

I think if you can say that the intentional application of force was warranted, not for the purposes of discipline but for the purposes of restraint, I think the law will have to recognize it as a defence. So what I'm anticipating is that the law will develop a colour of right, it will have to.

Q: What about where a toddler or seven year old is just being outright disobedient, defying boundaries and authority, and in need of discipline, but not in need of restraint for their own safety?

A: Assault has always had various defences of the kind we've just been through, and to me it is about marking a boundary about what is effectively a legitimate form of restraint.

I think the law would have to develop a defence, the same way colour of right developed, that what you were doing - a technical assault - was justified because of the circumstances that were presented to the parent.

Q: Courts or parliament?

A: I think the courts will probably be the right place to deal with it. I think a District Court judge familiar with dealing with assault issues generally will see how this fits into a pattern of defences to assault.

I mean, technically there are not many defences to assault. You don't get charged with assault for taking someone in a headlock who's threatening someone else, because that's defence of another, but the trouble is those things don't generally have application to children. We're still talking about a form of restraint for a reason to do with the way people live in their homes. And there is the conundrum: how do you take the defences, and
they're well established, that apply outside and say it applies to the relationship between a parent and child inside a house?

I think you've hit it on the button. The crucial question is going to be, child hitting another child - grab the child and take it away, that's not assault. Child causing pandemonium, screaming its head off and threatening its own stability. You couldn't possibly be charged with assault for taking that child to another room provided it's reasonable force. That's not discipline, that's control.

It's the point at which it moves to discipline that I think the law has no answer at present. Because if you can't smack a child, what can you do by way of discipline to say 'you're behaving very badly, I do not like your language, you're going to go and sit in that room there!'

'I'm not going!'

'Right, I'm going to pick you up and put you in there'.

That's technically an assault. What's the warrant for it? We have no statutory defence to it.

On the other hand there is a tremendous amount of common sense in the police and the courts, so you're not going to see thousands of parents prosecuted for this. But yes there will be test cases, and the law will evolve.


IN SUMMARY, MAIN LEGAL POINTS:
A simple smack would definitely be a prima facie assault.
Touching a child for any disciplinary purpose, such as forcing them into time out, would definitely be a prima facie assault.

Touching a child for the purposes of his or her own safety, or the safety of others, or the safety of property, would be authorized by s41 and s48 of the Crimes Act, and therefore not an assault

Queens counciWhile police would have a 'discretion' as to whether to charge, in practice many police stations are already calling in CYF, who take a blanket "no smacking' approach and would be within their powers to remove children from parents, even if insufficient evidence existed to convict.

Posted by Ian Wishart at March 3, 2007 05:14 PM
 

15 March 2007 - nzherald.co.nz - Garth George: Be afraid parents, your children will dob you in

http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/

Garth George: Be afraid parents, your children will dob you in

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 15th, 2007

Source: nzherald.co.nz

5:00AM Thursday March 15, 2007
By Garth George

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

So wrote C.S. Lewis, that towering 20th century intellect, who left for generations of children the wondrous Chronicles of Narnia, which in their movie form will entrance generations more.

He was writing, of course, of the Sue Bradfords of this world and their ilk, those self-righteous meddlers whose arrogance is surpassed only by their ignorance.

But you can bet there were more than a few parliamentarians - Labour ones in particular - who yesterday studiously ignored “the approval of their consciences” to vote against amendments to Ms Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.

How sad it is that grown men and women are so terrified of offending she who must be obeyed that they scurry for cover like children confronted with an irate parent.

Perhaps, though, it isn’t so surprising since anyone who has watched or listened to parliamentary debate will have realised that many parliamentarians are indeed childish, behaving in the House like a bunch of irritable, rowdy, ill-mannered and badly-behaved tots.

But such is the way of things in New Zealand politics today and it seems the Bradford bill will enter the statute books and the law will become an even bigger ass than it is. So the time has come to warn parents of a couple of the awful things they might expect as a result.

The first - and probably the worst - threat to parents will not be the police but the Child Youth and Family Service.

Craig Smith, of Family Integrity, says section 2 of the Bradford bill makes the correction of children a criminal offence if one uses any hint of force whatsoever.

That can be a gesture, a threat to withdraw privileges, intimidation, an appeal to conscience or any kind of physical force.

Mr Smith says the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act gives a CYFS social worker, operating on his or her own, authority to use whatever force is needed to enter private homes and take children away.

“The social worker doesn’t need proof that abuse has taken place; he or she only needs to suspect that “ill-treatment” is “likely” to happen.

And CYFS is not accountable if a mistake is made, says Mr Smith.

“If there is uncertainty whether the parent’s actions were corrective or merely preventive, the bill says the corrective interpretation must prevail, putting parents outside the law.

“A core responsibility of parenting, the correction of children, is thus thoroughly subverted.”

The second danger is that that before the law has been long on the books some children will begin reporting their parents to the police when they don’t like parental discipline and correction.

Bob McCoskrie, of Family First, says prominent QC Peter McKenzie has given a legal opinion that highlights the danger of children dobbing in their parents in which he says that “complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges”.

That, says Mr McCoskrie, is consistent with international experience. He quotes Superintendent R. Logan, police deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London, and Britain’s most senior black policeman, as saying that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge.

The results, the superintendent is quoted as saying during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men, had been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption.

Mr McCoskrie says that in Sweden, where smacking was banned in 1979, the Nordic Committee for Human Rights had reported “Children have been informed of their rights so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents with the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police.”

The committee reports that when children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but are held to their stories - without any consideration of the damages that the children incur to themselves.

It adds: “The resentment 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 [and] seriously damaged the parent/child relationship.”

So, all you good, faithful Kiwi parents: Be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted in WATCHING CYFSWATCH NZ MEDIA | No Comments »
 

15 March 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Commissioner should stay out of politics

15 March 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Commissioner should stay out of politics

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00196.htm

Commissioner should stay out of politics

Thursday, 15 March 2007, 5:02 pm Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Judith Collins MP
National Party Welfare Spokeswoman
15 March 2007
Children's Commissioner should stay out of politics and stick to her day job

The Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, should stop promoting Labour Party propaganda and get on with her main job of dealing with complaints relating to children, and the monitoring of Child Youth and Family, says National's Welfare spokeswoman, Judith Collins.
Ms Collins is commenting after Dr Kiro today issued a press release calling on MPs to 'show resolve and support' Green MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.

"The Children's Commissioner has the delegated statutory authority to deal with CYF complaints under the Children's Commissioner Act of
2003," says Ms Collins.

"Unfortunately, since Dr Kiro's admission on 21 February that she 'needs to lift (her) game' in this area, she has continued to define her role as the promotion of legislation that will criminalise good parents who give their child a light smack with their hand as a means of correction.

"Dr Kiro has frankly lost the plot.

"She needs to concentrate on the 13,000 children that CYF say are cases of substantiated child abuse and let good parents get on with the job of parenting.

"A light smack on the bottom for correction does not harm a child as Dr Kiro should recall from when she was a parent of young children."

ENDS
 

14 March 2007 - www.challengeweekly.co.nz - Parents: be afraid, be very afraid - CYFS is now the big threat

http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com

Parents: be afraid, be very afraid - CYFS is now the big threat

Source: http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/story1.htm

Wednesday, 14.03.2007, 04:31pm (GMT12)

By staff reporters

The director of lobby organisation Family Integrity says the real threat to parents if Green list MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is passed is not the police but something far worse – the Child Youth and Family Service. And Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for the anti-smacking bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they don’t like parental discipline and correction.

Craig Smith, of Family Integrity, says section 2 of Sue Bradford’s bill makes the correction of children a criminal offence if one uses any hint of force whatsoever. That can be a gesture, a threat to withdraw privileges, intimidation, an appeal to conscience or any kind of physical force. “CYF will come threatening to take the children away. Nothing could be more traumatic to a child, especially since the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, section 39, gives a single social worker, operating on his or her own, authority to use whatever force is needed to enter private homes and tear children from the mother’s arms.

“The social worker doesn’t need proof that abuse has taken place; he or she only needs to suspect that ‘ill-treatment’ is ‘likely’ to happen. And CYFS is not accountable if a mistake is made.”

Mr Smith says Section 1 of the Bradford bill lets a parent slap a hand over a child’s mouth if he or she is about to repeat an offensive swear word. But if the parent says, “Don’t do it again or you’ll be off to bed without dessert,” the parent has just committed criminal assault, worth as much as two years in jail.

“If there is uncertainty whether the parent’s actions were corrective or merely preventive, the bill says the corrective interpretation must prevail, putting parents outside the law. A core responsibility of parenting, the correction of children, is being thoroughly subverted.

“The Bradford bill appears to be the product of a fevered mind, corrupted by power, attempting to force its philosophy of child autonomy and minimal parental authority and maximum state powers of intervention upon us all to advance the utopia of a radical feminist agenda where so-called ‘patriarchal structures’ such as the nuclear family are completely destroyed or neutralised,” Mr Smith said.

Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First, says prominent QC Peter McKenzie has given a legal opinion that highlights the danger of children dobbing in their parents in which he says that “complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges”. “And this is consistent with international experience,” Mr McCockrie says.

Superintendent R. Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London, and Britain’s most senior black policeman has said 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 had 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: “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 with 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.”

Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass the Bradford 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, “a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority to raise their children in the best environment possible.”
 

14 March 2007 - The Dominion Post - Police prepare rules to act on smacks

http://www.stuff.co.nz/3991850a10.html

Police prepare rules to act on smacks

By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 14 March 2007

Police chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with complaints about smacking as a bill outlawing the use of physical punishment looks set to become law.
The guidelines for dealing with complaints under the new law are likely to be delivered to police officers as soon as it comes into effect, which will be days after its final vote, as early as a fortnight from now.

Police headquarters said yesterday it could not comment on the final shape of the guidelines because they were still in draft form and dependent on the final shape of the law.

But Police Association president Greg O'Connor said police guidelines in their current form made it clear they would have no choice but to act on smacking complaints.

"We believe that under the policy as it exists it will be referred to as domestic violence."

Unless there was a change to the guidelines once the law was passed, police would have no discretion.

"If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested.

"That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."

The bill's passage appears almost certain now that the Maori Party's four MPs say they will vote against a "smacking clause" put up by National MP Chester Borrows, which will be voted on tonight. Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples acknowledged yesterday the decision of his MPs would not be popular with many people.

"But we're asking New Zealand to be brave - to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children and that we can actually find an alternative way of bringing up our children."

The clause would have rewritten the bill to allow parents to smack their children so long as they did not leave bruises and the effects were only trifling.

The champion of the so-called anti-smacking bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, said yesterday the Borrows amendment had posed the biggest threat to her bill and the Maori Party decision meant she had the numbers to pass her legislation into law.

Yesterday, she issued a legal opinion from Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer rejecting claims from the bill's opponents that it would criminalise parents for lifting a child on to a time-out mat.

Mr Borrows was refusing to give up, saying he thought he could still sway the minds of some MPs. However, that would require either NZ First MPs Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly or United Future leader Peter Dunne to change their votes, and all three yesterday confirmed their support for Ms Bradford's bill.

Prime Minister Helen Clark welcomed the Maori Party's stance, and defended Labour's decision to make the issue a party vote, rather than a conscience vote.

"We believe it's such a serious issue and it's so important to deal with violence against children that as a government, we believe the right thing to do is to back a change in the law which will help. As a party, we have decided this is the position we will take."
 

13 March 2007 - Family Integrity - Strangers Can but Parents Can't

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00155.htm

13 March 2007 - Family Integrity - Strangers Can but Parents Can't

Press Release
For Immediate Distribution

Strangers Can but Parents Can't

Bradford's misguided Bill to repeal Section 59 is incredibly short sighted in a number of ways. One is that she failed to notice Section 60 of the Crimes Act, right next door to Section 59. Section 60 justifies the use of "reasonable force" toward children, elderly and anyone else at the captain's or pilot's command by even passengers and crew on a ship or aircraft "for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline".

Will that force be considered justified if used by parents in the home, in the car or in the shopping trolley? Isn't "maintaining good order and discipline" also "incidental to good care and parenting" (which Bradford says is to be legal), or will it be defined as correction (which Bradford will insist makes it a crime)?

It is not at all clear what Bradford means by "correction". Is it not reasonable that parents should have as much authority in their homes and vehicles and shopping trolleys as captains and pilots have on their craft? Or will this Bill land us in the situation where strangers in the form of passengers and crew can use reasonable force on my children to maintain good order and discipline on the ferry ship in the calms of Wellington harbour, but my wife and I are not allowed to use it on our own children in our own van to maintain good order and discipline while driving through the chaos of Wellington highways.

This ridiculous Bill is focused on criminalizing the benign corrective force used by nearly every good and caring parent in the country.....while doing nothing whatsoever to weed out the dysfunctional child abusing households. Dump the Bill.

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
 

13 March 2007 - newzealandconservative.blogspot.com

newzealandconservative.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-green-hypocrisy.html

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

More Green hypocrisy

Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference which traditional conservatives are opposed to.

There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.

The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case low-income Maori.

However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with their own issues.

The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively new phenomenon.

Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from below.

The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the early 19th Century.

What makes Bradford’s meddling in the private lives of the country’s citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn’t include conservation of mainstream social norms.

Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the former while also trying to do the later.
 

Email this page to a friend

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