Join Us

New form

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Moore [mailto:chch@unityforliberty.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: Good week down south

Hi Southerners,

We had a good number of volunteers at the Balclutha A&P Show.
Katie took the day - hardly staying at the table at all. She brought in 241 signatures by herself, absolutely blowing us away!
Running from 9:30am til about 4:00pm, we collected 980 signatures - approximately 20%of the 5,000 strong crowd at the Show!

Natalie, our Otago coordinator from the Catlins says...
"Very exciting week for us down here just wonderful to see people climbing on board now. Great to see people are more aware of the petition, very lucky to get lots of exposure over the radio on the lead up to the show . That is due to each and everyone of you all getting out there and spending time with the people. We had some wonderful helpers from Christchurch, Dunedin and Mosgiel at the Show.

A big thank you to each of you, we are truly grateful to have the Moore Family who are out there travelling around New Zealand. Craig thank you for your humour and encouragement.Katie great stuff you have a real gift, keep it up.Thankfully we weren't placed next to the Greens Tent , like in Christchurch Sue Bradford would have been wrapped that I had lost my vocal capacity. Just great to meet people out there with a team of great people, makes it an enjoyable day. Went to Gore last week great response and will be there next week on Tuesday 4th December, do you want a ride? I told Bill English that he would be seeing a lot more of us down his way.

I am looking for people to help in Invercargill in the next two weeks I can pick up and transport people from Balclutha or you could meet me in the Catlins and we will do the Southern Scenic Route down and make a day of it bring a packed lunch... and togs?

I will be in Blenheim, four weeks in total and I am keen to have some happy face's come along and give a hand.

Centre City Mall have plenty of free spaces for us to target the Mall next week let me know what day may suit you and I will book it and come up, they have the yummiest fudge there! ( join me and the fudge will be on me ) Let me know by Friday this week please. 03 41 58243. Looking forward to many more fun times with you all."

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

Back in Christchurch, a team of three hit the town. Late afternoon, they headed over to the Coca Cola Christmas in the Park concert, and then on Sunday morning they went to Riccarton Market. Bringing in 758 signatures, they did extremely well for such a small team! It does make you think though - how many signatures did we miss out on because we didn't have enough volunteers at the Concert?

Our strategy for the coming months is really going to be just hitting these events, such as A&P shows and other concerts.

Also, it is important to keep up the weekly tables as these keep a steady flow of signatures flying up to Larry Baldock's office in Tauranga.

If you can help - or if you know someone who might be able to help, please get back to me. What we are finding more and more, is that there are plenty of people who are happy to sign - we just need the volunteers to bring in these signatures - and it's so easy! If we don't get a few more volunteers however, the statistics are not in our favour: we will not make the required number of signatures by the cut off date.

As always, please forward this on to anyone who you think may be interested!

And remember the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing".

Kind Regards,
Andy Moore
phone: 021 1140 751
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
God Defend New Zealand.
 

27 November 2007 - Family Integrity #318 -- U4L; LAST WEEKS SIG COUNT

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:59 PM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L; LAST WEEKS SIG COUNT

Hi All,

Previous week update, another great week for the cause. A total of 6182 signatures for the week, WELL DONE ALL.

Larry Baldock has requested everyone post in all signatures, so he can get an accurate figure which will help encourage folk to continue collecting. We'll be posting the official count on the website when we get the next total.

We'll be sending out a Table Challenge report soon.

The best news that we are hearing of others who have been quietly working away, that means that our recorded total should be on the light side. Also people who are signing the petition seem to be willing to take our cards so they can download the forms themselves for family and friends to sign. Again this will make our recorded total light.

The top three belong to Natalie, who wrote: "Wow what a super week I was in Gore today and had a good response in 2.5 hrs I got 65 signatures and the day before a dear 77 year old got 181!!!"

Catlins 80
Gore 246
Balclutha 980

Howick 320
North Shore 414
Nelson 150
Porirua 100
Christchurch 758
Henderson 600
Hawke's Bay 498
Rodney 605
Taupo 750
Wellington 34
Papakura 100
Manurewa 240
Tauranga 170
Hamilton 240

weekly total: 6,285

That's above budget

Many hands make light work, Thank you very much.
Craig Hill
021746113
http;//www.unityforliberty.net.nz

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

23 November 2007 - Family Integrity #317 -- U4L, upcoming weekend events

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:23 AM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L, upcoming weekend events

Hi All,

Up coming events and news (I apologize for the late notice)

IF YOU HAVE CONTACTS IN THESE AREAS PLEASE FORWARD THESE DETAILS TO THEM, THANKYOU

Taupo- Larry Baldock is targeting the Taupo Bike Race, we have heard that this event attracts 20,000. If any volunteers are interested with helping it will be much appreciated. Please contact craighill@maxnet.co.nz for details.

Catlins- Natalie has organized a table at the Balclutha A&P Show this Saturday, and it's under cover. Any volunteers in the area please contact Natalie by e-mail catlins@unityforliberty.net.nz or craighill@maxnet.co.nz or mob 021746113


Nelson- We have a request from Jan, this is her request-Can anyone help me gather signatures for the petitions at Nelson A&P Show in Richmond this weekend, entry tickets provided. I'm 65 and not much use without support so I hope people can come while the news reports are fresh in their minds.
Yours sincerely,
Jan
Please contact me by either e-mailing craighill@maxnet.co.nz or mobile 021746113

Henderson- John is currently organising some tables at the Whanua Day Out run by the Ezekiel 33 Trust. Please contact me by either e-mailing craighill@maxnet.co.nz or mobile 021746113

Rodney- Arna is about to weave some more magic up there, she is looking at the Albany area as well. She can be contacted through rodney@unityforliberty.net.nz

Howick- Targeting a Christmas parade on Saturday at Picton Street, for more details contact me by either e-mailing craighill@maxnet.co.nz or mobile 021746113


The photos from the A&P Show are now on the web site, go and view the lady signing the petition in the Green Party tent, they were not happy. click here

Regards

Craig Hill

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

22 November 2007 - Family Integrity #316 -- CIR Update no 17

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Baldock [mailto:l.baldock@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 3:29 PM
To: CIR.Petition@xtra.co.nz
Subject: CIR Update no 17

Hi once again,

We had a massive week last week with Andy Moore and his team collecting a fantastic total of 5610 over the three days at the A & P show. They were ably assisted on Thursday by Craig Hill and on Friday by Bob McCoskrie who flew down from Auckland to help and that was very much appreciated.

The total for the week was over 8,000!

So the new total is now 225,052!

I think what we have learnt from Christchurch is that it is worthwhile getting a table inside these exhibitions if possible and forming a team to make a concentrated effort rather than operating from outside the gates. It is not always possible to get inside, but worth the cost when we do.

I am compiling a list of all the A & P shows occurring around the country before our target date of March 1st to collect the 300,000 signatures we need.

If you want to have a look now and see if there is one near you click on http://www.ras.org.nz/ and you will find the schedules and contact details. The sooner we book a space the better.

Between now and Christmas there will be a number of cities which will have 'Christmas in the Park' type events. Do what you can to get a table set up there by contacting the organisers for permission. If it is in a public park ask the Council for permission to be on the side walk just outside where people are walking in. I have found our Council here in Tauranga very helpful with such permission so long as we do not block the path or harass anyone.

This weekend Barbara and I will head to Taupo for the Great Cycle Challenge where there are tens of thousands gathered. If anyone is interested in joining us for a fun day collecting please let me know. (my cell is 021864833)

Then on Dec 1st we have a table at the Fielding A & P show. Volunteers welcome.

All the best as you make plans for the holidays and time with your loved ones and family.

I will send one final update for this year after the Fielding show. Lets all do what we can to make that total as close to 250,000 as we can by then.

Regards
Larry
 

22 November 2007 - Family Integrity #315 -- A&P Show: thanks guys!

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: A&P Show: thanks guys!

Hi guys,

It's about 4 days since the A&P Show in Christchurch ended. I'm sorry I haven't sent this update out sooner, but I've been on dial-up internet for a week, plus been really busy, so haven't got round to it until now.

First of all, a huge thanks to our excellent team. I was especially impressed by four young ladies, who hadn't done this sort of thing before, but they launched themselves into it without any hesitation. Impressed doesn't do it justice, they had the arguments down to a T, calling out to people who were walking past and also getting out into the crowd with clipboards. You guys know who you are - so thanks heaps for your effort there!

Wednesday: 680 signatures
Thursday: 2,020 signatures
Friday: 2,910 signatures

Total for the A&P Show was 5,610. We smashed the record for all of New Zealand - thanks so much to you guys who made it happen. We went from needing 80,000 signatures to needing about 74,000 in just three days, absolutely spectacular effort!

A big thanks also has to go out to the mums who came along and helped. Five or six mums I think, from all over the south Island - fantastic!

Bob McCoskrie from Family First http;//www.familyfirst.org.nz and Craig Hill from Unity for Liberty http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz both made time to fly down from Auckland and help us out - much appreciated!

Christchurch. I need people for this Saturday (24 November).

This Saturday we plan to collect signatures first in Hagley Park near the pedestrian overbridge into the Botanic Gardens (call 03 357 4599 to let us know if you can help with this), and...
Coca Cola Christmas in the Park is also on on Saturday night. I need a team of volunteers to collect signatures from people as they go into the concert.

These are two great opportunities people, don't let us down, get in touch with me - come along for even just 2 hours if you can, it all counts!

If you read this far down the email - pat yourself on the back for your non-apathetic attitude. Apathy among Christians and other thinking people is the number one reason why our country is in trouble. If you are active yourself, please try and get those around you to get a rocket under them. If you're not active yourself... well, please think seriously about this issue - the new anti-smacking law is a direct assult upon Christians, families, Churches, the Bible, you and me.

Auckland. The challenge is there for you. If the team up in Auckland can beat 2,910signatures in one day, there will be a few big boxes of chocolates heading up your way.

Remember. All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke)

See you all again very soon at our next signature gathering event,
http://unityforliberty.net.nz/table-challenge.html has details of campaigns being run throughout New Zealand.

Kind Regards,
Andy Moore
phone: 021 1140 751
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
God Defend New Zealand
 

20 November 2007 - Family Integrity #314 -- Good news of U4L update

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:02 PM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L update

Hi All,

I am considering traveling down to Wellington for the electoral finance march on Wednesday, is there anyone who can help collect signatures at the beginning and end of the march? We had a good response in Auckland and expect the same in Wellington.
Could you please let me know if you are available, looking forward to meeting those from the area. contact craig@unityforliberty.net.nz

Thanks,

Craig
ph 021 746 113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz

Results from last week efforts....

Great week just gone:

Christchurch A&P
numbers Day one 680
Day two 2020
Day three 2910

Wellington 59
Porirua 100
Ellerslie Flower Show 213
Highland Games 280
Auckland March 530
North Shore 310
Manurewa 40

7142 Not bad, best week yet

This is what I enjoy reading....

Manning a table can be quite daunting first time up, Lynne from North Shore felt this. However that all changed quickly, she found the public very encouraging and 310signatures later she was heading home and looking forward to next week, well done.

Dear Craig,
Thank you for encouraging us to take part in collecting signatures for the petitions of Sheryl Savill and Larry Baldock for a Citizens Initiated Referendum.
We had six persons in our team, starting at 11am and finishing at 3pm. We had wonderful weather during the collection of signatures. At least 60% of the people that past us signed one or both petitions. We were situated along side the footpath near the back entrance of the Ellerslie Flowershow in the Manukau Botanical Garden at Manurewa. When we set up the table, we were told by the Traffic Warden at that point that we had to move away from the corner at the entrance to the show, as we would be a hindrance to the traffic flow to and from the show. We obeyed by moving five meters from the corner but leaving a sign on the fence at the corner. People were coming to our table as soon as we were set up. At times cued up during the day to have access to the four boards on the table. Within an half hour The traffic attendant came to us again telling us to move the signs from the fence as the bus drivers had complained about them. We moved the signs from the corner by a few meters, which must have satisfied the traffic Warden because we did not hear from him again. At 1pm I offered him an apple as we had lunch and he had not yet had his lunch. He thanked us for the kind offer but no he would get a free lunch soon. At three pm he permitted us to bring in our car to pick up the table, chairs and signs. He had also signed the petition that afternoon. We have collected 213 signatures for the Sheryl Savill petition and 194 signatures for the Larry Baldock petition. We had only positive comments from those who signed the petitions. We enjoyed the work, thanks for the opportunity.
Albert
-----
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

16 November 2007 - Family Integrity #312 -- Speech made for the rest of us who share some of his values

Be great if we had such leadership as this in NZ.

Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to le ave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, dem ocracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy gecis monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia"

"However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."

"This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country that accepted YOU !"

Greetings all,

This was just published in Sweden. This will not likely help us in NZ, for the anti-smacking law in Sweden is in the Civil Code, the one with no penalties! Social Workers and police there have to decide if the smack that comes to their attention is either clearly an assault under their criminal code or can come under other criminal legislation such as the infamous "disturbing of the peace" law. NZ's anti-smacking law is in the criminal code, where we will automatically face charges of assault if a smack ever comes to the attention of social workers or police. Things seem to be changing in Sweden since the recent elections that booted out the socialists and voted in a conservative government.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

http://www.thelocal.se/9110/20071115/
Parents 'allowed to smack children'
Published: 15th November 2007 16:48 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/9110/

Swedish parents are allowed to smack their children, as long as they do not hit them too hard, a court in southern Sweden has ruled.

Ystad District Court was ruling in the case of a couple accused of assaulting their daughter. The pair were accused after the girl, 5, told a nurse at a medical check-up that she had been hit.

In subsequent interviews the girl told police:

"When daddy came home from work and was very cross, he hit me on the bottom and it hurt.

"Mummy also hit me on the head, and that hurt," she added.

The father admitted smacking the girl on the bottom, saying that the physical chastisement was part of her upbringing.

A unanimous court ruled that the father's smack did not constitute assault - it was not hard enough to be assault, nor was it done with indifference to the pain it would cause.

Hans Hulthén, the lawyer representing the girl, said he was considering appealing the verdict.

"This ruling undoubtedly sends very strange signals," Hulthén said.

Swedish law is widely interpreted as banning smacking of children, and Sweden is frequently cited internationally as an example of a country with a total ban on corporal punishment.

The 1979 Parenting Act states that children "may not be subjected to corporal chastisement or other demeaning treatment."

According to Sweden's Children's Ombudsman, the preparatory work for the act stipulates that corporal punishment is banned if it causes the child physical injury or pain. This is intended to apply even to a light strike or passing pain, it states.

TT/The Local (news@thelocal.se/08 656 6518)

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:40 AM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L table update

Hi All,

GENTLE REMINDER TO ALL AUCKLANDERS,

QUEEN STREET MARCH, All these people will want to sign our petition, we plan to have tables at the beginning with a good man on a megaphone (wrapped in foam, which is now an OSH standard, makes it Labour member thump proof).

IF YOU ARE ATTENDING PLEASE BRING A PETITION BOARD WITH PLENTY OF FORMS and ALSO SOME FLYERS "Go to http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz for petition forms"(written on paper), there is a very good probability that these people will download forms for family and friends.

We also need volunteers for Tables, could you give me an indication please, contact Craig craig@unityforliberty.net.nz Thankyou.


LAST WEEKENDS RESULTS,

Rodney led the way with the collection of 520 signatures on Saturday with only 8 folk, well done Arna and the team. Porurua ticking away with 70, Pukekohe nabbed 90, Botany 110, Marton 90, Feilding 125, Hawkes Bay 126, Manurewa 150 and there are still others out there. Great work all. "More tables being added this week".

THE BIG NEWS AT THE A&P SHOW, it's a must read.

I have just arrived back in Auckland from the Christchurch A&P Show, the experience was out of this world. All hats off for Andy, also met Natalie from Catlins (have the Aucklanders worked out where the Catlins are), she traveled six hours to help, she is a real joy.

Here are the numbers:

Wednesday realized 680 in the wind and hail.
Thursday came in with 2020 signatures, it was amazing.

For those who may not have known, our stand was situated right next to the Green Party Tent, I don't think they liked us there. But there's more. On Wednesday when it was cold and windy a lovely lady grabbed a petition board so she could sign, then to give it her full attention she stepped under the tent and out of the weather. Only one problem, she did not realize she had stepped into the "Greens Tent". They were not impressed at all.

My best wishes to all who have involved themselves to date and thank you very much,

Craig Hill
m021746113
http;//www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

15 November 2007 - Family Integrity #309 -- A&P Show: Day 2

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:57 PM
Subject: A&P Show: Day 2

Hi folks,

Our fantastic team down in Christchurch collected 2,020 signatures today. We've broken the record.

I'll let you know how Friday goes.

All strength to your arm,
Andy Moore
phone: 021 1140 751
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

15 November 2007 - Family Integrity #308 -- Urgent - volunteers needed

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:23 AM
To: Craig
Subject: Urgent - volunteers needed


Volunteers are needed in Auckland this weekend for the Ellerslie Flower Show and the Electoral Finance Bill March in Queen Street.
We are co-ordinating collecting signatures in these areas and need as many volunteers as possible.

Kill two birds with one stone.
If you are already attending the March in Queen Street please take petition forms (download from here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html), clipboard and pen, since there will be announcements on the anti-smacking law during the March and those attending will want to sign.
Those helping with the Flower show will need petition forms (download from here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html), clipboard and pen.
If you're available to help with either event, please contact Craig craig@unityforliberty.net.nz


Other areas are also needing volunteers and assistance:

http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/table-challenge.html

Rodney District
Northshore
Howick
Mangere
Manurewa
Papakura
Pukekohe
Waiuku
Tauranga
Hawkes's Bay
Marton
Wellington
Christchurch
Catlins

If you are available in any of these areas, please look up our website http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/table-challenge.html for contact details.

An update on last weekends table collection will be out soon.

Kind regards,

Craig
ph 021 746 113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

15 November 2007 - Family Integrity #307a -- A&P Show: Day 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Moore [mailto:chch@unityforliberty.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:07 PM
To: chch@unityforliberty.net.nz
Subject: A&P Show: Day 1


Dear volunteers, stake-holders and key people behind the scenes - you know who you are,

Thanks so much for your help, there would be no Citizen's Initiated Referendum on the damaging new anti-smacking law if it weren't for you.

We collected 680 signatures today. Torrential rains, occasional hail and chilling wind didn't help, but despite this our team pulled through.

Volunteers from as far as Invercargill, Auckland and the West Coast arrived to do their bit.

Player of the Day award goes to Natalie from Invercargill. We just couldn't stop her! Legend!

I'll let you know how tomorrow goes.

--
Andy Moore
phone: 021 1140 751
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

13 November 2007 - Family Integrity #307 -- Flash of Insight

Dear Friends,

Let me share with you a recent conversation between a good friend of mine and an acquaintence of his. Reading this exchange caused me to have one of those rare flashes of insight, which I also share with you below.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


Hi Craig,

Last Friday night we went out to the home of a couple who have three young children.

There were three couples there.

Over dinner we got to talking about s59 and the dilemmas it will throw up for Christians.

The host husband said he thought the whole debate was a storm in a tea cup!

I suggested it wasn't at all and that Christian parents now faced a real choice of either obeying God and correcting their children, or obeying man and not - a choice in this area I had not had to face and didn't want my kids to have to face.

The host wife said, that if it came down to having your children taken off you, you would have to obey man...

So there you go. The solution is easy. Obey man.

Regards,
R...


Gidday R ...,

This is the dilemma: and at last I see the flaw in the thinking: that if we obey God, men will -- not might -- take our children away from us. God is sovereign. He is also The Sovereign Who must -- not might -- be obeyed. We must obey, regardless of the consequences. I was set to leave NZ so that I could obey without the attendant danger, not the attendant certainty, of the state stealing my children. But the Lord shut that door, so I am staying on here in NZ, not happily I must add, but obediently and also expectantly. I expect the Lord to do great and mighty things, and if He can use me and my family as instruments of Righteousness, praise His Holy Name for such a marvellous privilege! Part of that expectation is of seeing the situation in NZ get far worse than it is now. Honestly, we ain't seen nothing yet. The enemy from the pit is manipulating the enemies in Parliament who willingly move to the devil's ideas. There will be much suffering and much damage to many families. We must be circling the wagons and hunkering down for the attacks, I believe, and also preparing for climbing out of the trenches and bomb shelters with our children and grandchildren who we have been training up and discipling in the meantime to take vital roles in the reconstruction of New Zealand once again as a Christian nation.

Craig
 

13 November 2007 - Family Integrity #306 -- Don't Mess with Mom

DON'T MESS WITH MOM

My son came home from school one day,
With a smirk upon his face.
He decided he was smart enough,
To put me in my place.

"Guess what I learned in Civics Two,
that's taught by Mr. Wright?
It's all about the laws today,
The 'Children's Bill of Rights.'

It says I need not clean my room,
Don't have to cut my hair
No one can tell me what to think,
Or speak, or what to wear.

I have freedom from religion,
And regardless what you say,
I don't have to bow my head,
And I sure don't have to pray.

I can wear earrings if I want,
And pierce my tongue & nose.
I can read & watch just what I like,
Get tattoos from head to toe.

And if you ever spank me,
I'll charge you with a crime.
I'll back up all my charges,
With the marks on my behind.

Don't you ever touch me,
My body's only for my use,
Not for your hugs and kisses,
that's just more child abuse.

Don't preach about your morals,
Like your Mama did to you.
That's nothing more than mind control,
And it's illegal too!

Mom, I have these children's rights,
So you can't influence me,
Or I'll call Children's Services Division,
Better known as C.S.D."

Of course my first instinct was
To toss him out the door.
But the chance to teach him a lesson
Made me think a little more.

I mulled it over carefully,
I couldn't let this go.
A smile crept upon my face,
he's messing with a pro.

Next day I took him shopping
At the local Goodwill Store.
I told him, "Pick out all you want,
there's shirts & pants galore.

I've called and checked with C.S.D.
Who said they didn't care
If I bought you K-Mart shoes
Instead of those Nike Airs.

I've canceled that appointment
To take your driver's test.
The C.S.D. Is unconcerned
So I'll decide what's best."

I said "No time to stop and eat,
Or pick up stuff to munch.
And tomorrow you can start to learn
To make your own sack lunch.

Just save the raging appetite,
And wait till dinner time.
We're having liver and onions,
A favorite dish of mine."

He asked "Can I please rent a movie,
To watch on my VCR?"
"Sorry, but I sold your TV,
For new tires on my car.

I also rented out your room,
You'll take the couch instead.
The C.S.D. Requires
Just a roof over your head.

Your clothing won't be trendy now,
I'll choose what we eat.
That allowance that you used to get,
Will buy me something neat.

I'm selling off your jet ski,
Dirt-bike & roller blades.
Check out the 'Parents Bill of Rights',
It's in effect today!

Hey hot shot, are you crying,
Why are you on your knees?
Are you asking God to help you out,
Instead of C.S.D..?"

Dear Friends,

I know some of you already get this straight from Family First, so forgive me for sending it again. This really is important. I mean, we never, ever watch TV. We're far too busy doing other things to be concerned about TV boycotts, etc., and I decided long ago not to be involved. But this below is clearly only one incident among many, a particularly bad patch along the way down, signalling for all to see what is going to follow. Since our family deals regularly with Vodafone, Genesis Energy and Flight Centre, we cannot sit around and do nothing. This kind of garbage is watched by too many of our neighbours and their kids who then associate with our children. These neighbours go on to become so totally desensitised to this kind of thing, they consider it normal, and so we have the gross dysfunction in schools and public entertainment and advertising and legislation that we see now. It will only get worse.

So get busy boycotting and writing letters. Get your passports up to date, for a flight to Australia may be our only way out of this stuff one day. But better yet, let us join in personal and corporate repentance for having allowed this kind of thing to develop while we were looking the other way, being uninvolved. Let us pray for forgiveness for ourselves, wisdom and stamina to do what is needed to combat this stuff, and the wisdom and courage to develop and follow strategies to create environments wherein we can train up our selves and our children in relative freedom from this stuff and also to train up ourselves and our children to evangelise others to determine to be free from addiction to this stuff personally and to determine to help free New Zealand from this stuff permanently.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

-----Original Message-----
From: admin@familyfirst.org.nz [mailto:admin@familyfirst.org.nz]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:00 PM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: Family First - Help TV Companies Clean up their act

08 Nov 2007
Hi Craig,

It's time television broadcasters cleaned up their act.
Let's give them some help!

Please join us in boycotting companies who advertised during the first episode of the pornographic Californication on TV3 last night - just the latest programme on the slippery slide of plummeting tv standards.

Believe me - it was SHOCKING!

Objectionable material included:
* four explicit sex scenes
* one involving violence
* full nudity
* teenage drug use
* constant foul language ('F' word 26 times)
* programme littered with explicit sexual talk and innuendo
* talk of beastiality
* inclusion of a very young girl as the lead character's daughter. This child is exposed to the worst effects of her father's sexual antics, including asking why her father's latest bedmate has no hair on her vagina
* the opening scene features the lead character having sex with a nun in a church

HELP US SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO COMPANIES TO WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT OF THIS PROGRAMME

Please send them a short, polite note informing them:
* you're concerned about the increasing amount of objectionable and offensive material on tv, and the effect it's having on our communities and the safety of our families
* we need their help to 'clean up' television
* if they're concerned about declining standards, increasing sexual crime, pornography (including child pornography), drug and alcohol abuse, offensive language, degrading treatment of women, violence in our communities, they can help bring about change by spending their advertising dollar on postive pro-family programmes!
* until they declare that they are boycotting advertising during this programme, you will boycott their products and go to the competition

You can read the letter that we are sending the companies to inform them of the boycott HERE http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/californication.html

Thank you for speaking up. Let us never be accused of having 'moral laryngitis'!!

Bob McCoskrie
National Director


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies who advertised during the programme (and their contacts):

Businessmentor.org.nz
0800 103 400
Email: bmnz@bitc.co.nz

Ferrit.co.nz
0800 FERRIT (337748)

Genesis Energy
0800 300 400
info@genesisenergy.co.nz

Burger King
09 477 4300
contactus@bknz.co.nz

Finish Dishwashing Liquid
(UK company)

Monteiths
(03) 768-4149
http://www.monteiths.com/nz/siteFiles/general/contactus.html

CRC
09 272 2700
customerservices@crc.co.nz

Pascall (Cadbury)
0800 CADBURY (223 287)
http://www.cadbury.co.nz/cadbury_home/enquiries.cfm

Vodafone
0800 800 021
http://vodafonenz.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/vodafonenz.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php

Flight Centre
0800 227 500
http://www.flightcentre.co.nz/section24.asp

and 2 government departments - bit hard to boycott - but at least tell them your concerns!
Ministry of Economic Development
info@med.govt.nz
04 472 0030

NZ Police
Police Commissioner Howard Broad
maria.di.mattina@police.govt.nz
04 474 9499


http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |
 

7 November 2007 - Family Integrity #304 -- Unity for Liberty: all good news

Forwarded message for your information.

Craig Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:44 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Unity for Liberty: all good news


Hi All,

It's been a Great start to the Challenge, and the best news is that it is still building. There is a a lot of information so I am going to as brief as I can.

Firstly, we still would like to see more volunteers. If you have a free Saturday let us know so we can plan ahead. This will make it much easier for our hard working coordinators, remember *2500 people x 10 signatures per Saturday = 100,000* and then we can all have Christmas off.

The web site has been updated with and now has a Photo Gallery with tables from around the country, some good ideas, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/photos.html.

Here's a testimony from Renton, we'll be adding him to the gallery when we receive some photos.

Hi Guys,
Got about 80 signatures by myself this morning at a market in 2½ hours. They will be in the mail later.Found the best call to get attention was:"Stop parents being made criminals for correcting their kids. Sign the petitions."
Had two signs up which could be read at a distance with:

the wording of the two petition questions
the statement: 'Sign the petitions!'
the statement : 'Did you know? Parents are now criminals for correcting their kids.'

When a person came to the table I would point to the two questions and say: "Two petitions to sign."
If they asked what they were about, I would say: "Should a smack be a criminal offence? If you answer 'no', then sign.", and "Should the Government look for the REAL causes of violence in families?"
Renton

Not sure of the last Saturday count, the good news is that our petition page is the most popular exit page on the web site. This would indicate that the petition form is being downloaded.

Confirmed results:

Christchurch - 222 signatures in 7 hours - big thanks to our two new volunteers!!!
Howick - 420 signatures
Papakura - 400 signatures
Pukekoe - 170 signatures
Tauranga - 160 signatures
Porirua - 80 signatures
Hawkes Bay - 223 signatures

Remember that this does not include different individuals who I know have been collecting quietly. They are out there.

There's been a Signature Bomb, A lovely couple from Fielding have registered, they have 500 signatures that they are about to send in(this is over and above Saturdays count). There will be other signature bombs out there.

Our coordinator of the week goes to Natalie from the Catlins, (trivia, how many Aucklander's know the location of Catlins? Clue- it's on the other side of the Bombay).
U4L encourages all to get in behind her, she's a gem and you will enjoy her enthusiasm and has some good ideas. She has not got the population to work with like we have in Auckland, so every 10 signatures it's probably worth 100 of ours, and she is not deterred.

Upcoming activities:

Rodney: Anna Mountain is back in the country and is about to weave some more of her magic, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/rodney.html.
North Shore: a lot of work is happening behind the scenes, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/northshore.html.
Manurewa: is about to fire, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/manurewa.html.
Pukekohe: locals are taking ownership, good stuff
Waiuku: about to fire as well
Hawkes Bay: venues have been confirmed, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/hawkesbay.html.
Christchurch: the tables are continuing and there are volunteers beginning to put up there hands, remember the table at the A&P Show, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/chch.html.
Catlins: some good ideas here, please click here http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/locations/catlins.html.

Again all coordinators need volunteers, if you have a spare day it won't be wasted, it's for the future of your children.

Thanks, there are some wonderful folk out there.

Craig Hill
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz

Remember, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

6 November 2007 - Family Integrity #303 -- a return to caning

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2800904.ece

African cane tames unruly British pupilsTristan McConnell, Accra
Scores of British school children are being sent away to take their GCSEs in Ghana, exchanging truancy and gang culture for traditional teaching and strong discipline, including the cane. “When I was in London I was bad basically,” said Abena, 16, from Hackney, east London, with braces on her teeth and a swagger in her step.

“I stopped going to school and in my head I was, like, thinking money, money, money.”

Dispatched to Africa, far from the world of gangs, theft and knife crime, she found herself at the Faith Montessori boarding school in Accra, Ghana’s capital, where the fees are £1,200 a year.

Most of the school’s expatriate children spend holidays with relatives or guardians in Ghana, returning to Britain once a year. During term time they live in dormitories 10 to a room.

For the parents it is a chance to save their children from the thuggery that has seen 21 teenagers shot or stabbed to death in London alone this year. Abena and three other British pupils at her school now believe they are receiving a rigorous education that was lacking in Britain.

“When your friends know that you’ve gone to Ghana they know that you’re going to get straightened up,” said Sienam, 17, from Edgware, north London, who has been at school in Accra for three years.

“I used to be really bad,” he said, muttering about gangs and the kind of playground violence that he has put behind him. “When my friends in London see that I’ve changed it wakes them up a little bit. I get respect but in a different way.”

According to Oswald Amoo-Gottfried, the school’s founder and director, the key to the success of pupils such as Sienam is the kind of discipline that has long since fallen out of fashion in Britain. “I believe in caning,” he declared. “I tell the parents: if you don’t want your child punished, then your child doesn’t belong here.”

His school is quiet, the atmosphere studious. The youngest children sit in neat sailor suits; older pupils wear blue shorts and white shirts, while the senior students dress in smart trousers and T-shirts emblazoned with the school badge.

In one classroom 30 pupils are arranged in rows of desks facing their male teacher and the white board. They remain silent until asked a question.

Amoo-Gottfried is a friendly faced disciplinarian who has seen more than 20 London children of African parentage pass through his school in the past five years.

“Children must be taught. You don’t sit down and discuss directions with a child – you tell them where to go,” he said. Children are beaten for misbehaving or failing to do home-work, but not for poor results.

Sienam admitted that he had been caned “many, many times” by his teachers in Ghana. “Any time you do something you know you shouldn’t do or step out of line, you get caned,” he said. The cane “works to some extent”, he conceded.

Isaac, 17, from Norwood, in southeast London, said he became involved in gangs and stealing before his parents sent him to Ghana. After four years at school in Accra he is softly spoken and articulate and hopes to sit international GCSEs at the end of this academic year before returning to Britain for A-levels.

When they first arrive the teen-agers are often “a lot wilder”, said Amoo-Gottfried, but with time and discipline they become “domesticated”. He puts the troubles of the British pupils down to a lack of good role models - a reason many West Indian families cite for sending their children to school back home.

“In London father has run off to work early in the morning, mother the same. So you find the children left to themselves and, as they say, the devil finds work for idle hands. Here they see professional people – lawyers, doctors – whereas in the UK most of the Ghanaians are blue-collar workers.”

The list of consistent A, B and C grades on a results sheet pinned to the notice board is a source of pride and several of Amoo-Gottfried’s former pupils are now at British universities.

Michelle Asante, 23, attended Archbishop Porter girls’ school in Takoradi, Ghana, and went on to complete a sociology degree at Sheffield University before going to drama school.

“The school I was attending in Plumstead [southeast London] wasn’t great and my mum felt I wasn’t being challenged. There was a lot of fighting,” said Asante, who is now an actress. “Education is so important in Ghana – people take it as their only means of escaping poverty. With education you can do anything, no matter how poor you are.”

The pupils at Faith Montessori agree discipline in Africa can be tough but also see their lives changing for the better. Abena and “the London boys”, which includes James, 16, from Edmon-ton Green, north London, also admit that while they are benefiting from a Ghanaian education, they miss home and look forward to going back to A-levels and university.The years of mischief are behind them, Isaac said: “What gets you respect over there is disgrace over here.”

Additional reporting: Sara Hashash

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

1 November 2007 - Family Integrity #302 -- U4L: well done Chuck & Tom

Greetings all,

If we all did collect a simple 10 signatures each week, what a difference it would make.

Regards,
Craig Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L: well done Chuck & Tom


Hi All,

Hope you're having a fantastic week and enjoying the weather!

Here's the magic equation again,
2500 people x 10 signatures x 4 Saturdays of November = 100,000 and we're done.

Now the goal posts have moved closer...

It is now 2498 people x 10 signatures x 4 Saturdays of November

Two wonderful elderly gentlemen took to the streets of Papakura, at their table they collected 90 signatures in just 2 hours.

THEY WERE BOTH HOME FOR LUNCH

Where have all the true blue Kiwis gone? There are so few people who are prepared to commit some time to this important issue that it is not funny.

Well done Chuck and Tom, and whats even better is that they are both doing it again.

Chuck and Tom have just shown us all how easy it can be to collect signatures...
...it takes me back to when a young man made a very pertinent comment.


"IF I DON'T SIGN I CAN'T COMPLAIN"

My message to all recipients is

As both Chuck and Tom have discovered there is a HARVEST of signatures out there - and it isn't hard to get them, we just need the people.


I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONTACT YOUR CLOSEST COORDINATORS AND JOIN THE FUN


List of tables/door-knocking campaigns:

NORTH ISLAND

Auckland:
Northshore http://unityforliberty.net.nz/northshore.html
Howick http://unityforliberty.net.nz/howick.html
Papakura http://unityforliberty.net.nz/papakura.html
Pukekoe
Manurewa
Waiuku

Tauranga http://unityforliberty.net.nz/tauranga.html
Hawke's Bay http://unityforliberty.net.nz/hawkesbay.html
Marton http://unityforliberty.net.nz/marton.html
Wellington http://unityforliberty.net.nz/wellington.html


SOUTH ISLAND

Christchurch http://unityforliberty.net.nz/chch.html
Catlins http://unityforliberty.net.nz/catlins.html

Please read this Hi from a couple of hard working GEMS
(Salt if the Earth)

Hi from Graeme and Jean
"Marton is holding a market day on 10th November from 9am to 1pm. We have booked a table to collect signatures. If there is anyone in our area please come and give us a hand. We have already collected over 1500 signatures but have not been actively collecting since the bill went through but would like to make another good effort. To contact us please email through craig@unityforliberty.net.nz."


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Kindest Regards,

Craig Hill
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

29 October 2007 - Family Integrity #301 -- Bloggers make salient points

Dear Friends,

Here are some insightful comments from bloggers about the mum who was FOR Bradford's bill and has now become a victim of the bill.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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




From: http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-has-started.html
New Zealand Conservative
Sunday, October 28, 2007
It has started
Front page of today's Sunday Star Times: School dobs mum to CYF for smacking son's hand. There were several interesting aspects to this case:

1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a "child abuser" for a simple smack on the hand.

2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn't.

3. She did not want to be named because she 'fears losing her children'. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.

4. We can see that it will not take much for people to 'dob in' parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been 'educated' that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?

5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but 'reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse'. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.

Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the "crime" of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?




From: http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/bradford-attacking-the-friends-of-section-59-repeal/
Bradford Attacking the Friends of Section 59 Repeal
Oct 28th, 2007 by scrubone

Here's a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

"My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property."
[the bill is]..."a necessary step in a complex process of weaning our society away from a culture of violence and abuse of our children."
..."we view children as second class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults."
"I reject absolutely the idea that parents have a God-given right to beat the evil out of their kids."
(Pretending the opposition to the bill was just religious extremism was a very common tactic. )

They [The Auckland District Law Society] suggest that, rather than outright repeal, the degree and nature of acceptable violence against children can be calibrated - e.g. by saying that it is okay to use force against three to twelve-year-olds and that there should be no 'striking above the shoulder'. I believe all children have the right to live in violence-free homes.
"My Bill to repeal Section 59 aims to remove the defence of reasonable force from parents who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury."
"Those who perpetrate the abuse and successfully apply section 59 as their defence remain unaccountable to our justice system."
That's a selection of quotes from this post.

Clearly, this woman would never have thought of herself as "seeing children as her property", or propagating a "culture of violence" or viewing her kids as "second class citizens". She never thought that she would be treated the same was as parents who "who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury".

No, she was and remains a good parent. She never imagined she would be placed in the above categories.

But now she has. She's been reduced to a state of fear, afraid of the Government using it's power to remove her children.

She was not afraid because she supported Sue Bradford, believed her statements, but discovered too late the nature of propaganda - whipping up hatred against a non-existent threat, to disguise the real effect. By doing this Sue managed to get get many victims of the law to support it.

But even worse, while opponents saw the curtain of state infiltration into families dropping and took proper precautions, this poor woman kept doing what good parents do, never thinking that someday she might be the target of the bill who's objectives she supported.

Just one of the more disgusting end results of the lies of Sue Bradford - reducing the enemies of child abuse to living in fear.
 

29 October 2007 - Family Integrity #300 -- Letter from traumatised mum

Dear Friends,

You've got to read this. It is the full letter from the Mum who was traumatised by CYFS and Police over smacking her child's hand. She was FOR Bradford's bill, and has now become a victim of it. She will, sadly, only be one of many, many more parents to be messed up by an increasingly interventionist state. The mum remains anonymous. I got this from "Big News" blog at http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


Family traumatised by police and CYFS after mum lightly smacked her son on the hand

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand. So she reported it to the Family First lobby who told the media What this story indicates is that anyone who gets reported to CYFS or police for light smacks on the hand will not only recieve unwanted CYFS or police attention, they`ll also get media attention as well.

This is what the woman told Family First. You read it herehttp://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html., first.


Dear Sir,

I would like to inform families of the potential repercussions of Sue Bradford's bill. I wish to do this by sharing with you our own family's traumatic experience, since this bill has been approved.

During recent school holidays, I arrived home around 5.30pm after a fun filled day with my children to notice a card left by Child Youth and Family, asking me to get in contact with them ASAP. There was no detail as to the reason. We received no official letter from CYF. After leaving six messages, over a period of four days, I was finally able to contact the Care and Protection officer.

The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning. The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

The Care and Protection officer went on to ask me questions relating to X's behaviour, and whether they needed help in any way, eg medication, special needs etc. I replied, not that I was aware of - just a normal every day child having a bad day.

She also enquired about my family and when she was satisfied, she assured me that she would not take this any further and could I please ask the school to contact me directly if this sort of thing happened again.

Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate. X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up - X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn't a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry. The teacher seemed to ask questions about X's behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was - only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no.

X is worried that they will be taken away, and it is really hard to get X to talk about it. X can also be a bit of a drama queen, and could have exaggerated to the teacher at the time (especially in X's frame of mind.) My husband did contact the school, to inquire why we weren't called earlier by the school and that this was just not good enough. He also communicated what the Care and Protection officer had said to us. The school responded that it was new procedure and were sympathetic, but offered us no apology.

This is the first incident of this kind we have had with the school. In the second incident (over 2 months later), I invited another family around for lunch one weekend. After lunch the fathers decided to take the children for a walk to the dairy and park. After they were gone about five minutes, two of my children came back and explained to me that they were goofing around, and that Dad had sent them home.

They continued to goof around outside on the trampoline. X got hurt in the rough and tumble, came inside in a huff. When asked what the matter was by our guest, X rudely replied, I don't want to talk to you. I kindly asked X to apologise and X walked outside. I followed and asked X to come back inside and apologise. X walked to the furthest side of the tramp, so that I could not reach X and refused to come back inside. My older child who was already on the tramp tried to wrestle X to the other side. There was a lot of yelling, laughing and screaming going on by everyone, as it had turned into a bit of a game. I tried to take control of X and pull the child off the tramp, while the child was shouting and resisting. I smacked X on the backside with the palm of my hand (X was lying on their stomach), pulled X towards me and asked X to control themselves. Finally X came inside and went to the bedroom. I told X to stay there until they apologised.

Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T's and dot their I's.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn't smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child. The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left.

These events have traumatised my children, not to mention my husband and myself.

I understand the Police and Child Youth and Family Services were doing their jobs, and I commend them for it. But come on...this is going a bit far don't you think? My children have always had a healthy respect for the police, now sadly that has been altered. I am concerned for the welfare of this country if this sort of thing keeps happening to our families. Our children need security in our system, and shouldn't be fearful of being pulled away from their families.

We have since received a letter from a Foster Care agency contracted to CYF. They had been made aware of the police visiting us and have offered us their services. Their letter informed us that a social worker would call us in the near future. This was very nice of them, only I feel we would only be wasting their time. I am grateful it was this organisation, rather than CYF.

I really am grieved about where our country is heading. We as a family have been made only too aware, that if we tick anyone off for whatever reason, whether a neighbor, a shop keeper or teacher and they call the police, it is their word against ours. Now that we are in the system, it doesn't matter whether we are guilty or not. If the police officer doesn't like us for any reason, they have the power to separate our family. This is a horrible reality!

Again I would like to stress that we are an average NZ family. We have four children - sons and daughters, both teens and younger. We are all law abiding citizens, we don't drink, smoke or do drugs. We have always encouraged our children to respect authority and after this experience, have all been very traumatized.

An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children's work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)

If I were to receive an "assault on a child" charge, I couldn't do these things, and I haven't even mentioned paid employment. This is an awful thought.

This new law seems to me, only to be creating insecurity for families that are genuinely trying their best to raise healthy, secure children, that are good law abiding citizens, and a lot of extra work for the organisations that are already over worked and under staffed.

We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority.

Yours sincerely
 

29 October 2007 - Family Integrity #299 -- Family First - Let's Finish What We Started!

LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/images/stop%20the%20abuse.jpg We all want to deal with our appalling rate of child abuse in New Zealand.

The government's response was to criminalise good parents who corrected their child with a light smack

and the child abuse continues....

Then they spent millions on media advertisements telling us what we already knew - that violence was not ok

and the child abuse continues....

WHY? Because they fail to identify or deal with the factors which lead to a greater chance of child abuse as identified in every UNICEF and CYF report - namely, family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, poverty, poor housing, and single parenthood.

See our 5-point Action Plan at www.stoptheabuse.org.nz
http://www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

Help us make 'CHILD ABUSE' and 'FAMILY BREAKDOWN' an Election Issue in 2008

There is currently a petition which has over 200,000 signatures demanding that a Referendum be held on this issue.

If we can get the required 300,000 signatures, child abuse and family breakdown will become an election issue in 2008 and political parties will have to tell us how they are going to deal with our unacceptable rate of child abuse - solutions that are practical, achievable, and targeted at the real causes of child abuse. Then you can vote accordingly.

Please join us in November for

"The Great New Zealand Table Challenge"

Family First NZ is joining with a new group
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/images/make%20them%20listen%20family%20
first%20large%20jpeg.jpg
Unity for Liberty http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to 'take up arms' - that means pens, tables and petition forms!

When: The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better)

Where: The length and breadth of New Zealand

Why: To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated
Referendum.

How: By being available in your own communities for NZ'ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business
on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field - mid-week touch - flower shows - Expos - wherever there's a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)

SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR!

Start planning now. Grab family and friends - borrow a table, and print off a pile of petition forms http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html and you're all set to go.

Thank you for taking action on this important matter.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/images/billy%20graham.jpg As Billy Graham said, "Our motto too often seems to be, 'Stay aloof. Don't get involved. Let somebody else stick his neck out.' In the face of all kinds of conditions screaming to be rectified, too many of us find ourselves afflicted with moral laryngitis."

Let's speak up - and demand that as a country, we tackle actual causes of child abuse with solutions that will work.


Kind regards
Bob McCoskrie
NATIONAL DIRECTOR

P.S. If everybody who received this email collected just 30 signatures on each petition we would reach our target. It's that easy!! So aim for 100 signatures to avoid any doubt!
 

29 October 2007 - Family Integrity #298 -- School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

Greetings:

If you haven't already read the latest of how ordinary parents are being victiminsed by the re-write of Section 59, here is a wee excerpt plus link to the article. Below that is Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson's response.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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




-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Barbara Smith [mailto:Barbara@hef.org.nz]
Skickat: den 28 oktober 2007 04:10
Till: Ruby Harrold-Claesson;
Ämne: School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack


http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/


School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
By RUTH LAUGESEN - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.


"I don't want to feel like a child abuser, and I don't want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son," she said. "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress."

Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:03 AM
Subject: SV: School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack


Dear All,

I'm not surprised at all. This is just the beginning. In Sweden we have 7000 reports of child abuse per year and that figure jumped 14 percent in February. Cases like this one was exactly what I warned NZ for when I visited in July of last year - I had the verdicts to prove it - but the law-makers refused to listen.

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

Also, good quotation from the Stuff article:
"The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, "not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level"." Let those who sympathised with Bradford feel the brunt of it. Who did she expect would be affected, other people's families? Isn't it typically psychopathic not to be able to empathize with others, but only to recognise one's own suffering?

By the way, was the govt. minister who was seen smacking his child ever prosecuted? I think he should have been prosecuted.

Have the NZ media picked up the article about the British govt. U-turn as yet? You know, one can always count on the British to have a common sense approach, which is totally lacking in Sweden and obviously also in NZ.

All the best to you and yours. Hope you all had a pleasant weekend.

Ruby
http://www.nkmr.org/english/
 

24 October 2007 - Family Integrity #297 -- U4L, table challenge update

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:28 PM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L, table challenge update

Hi All,

Very encouraged with the progress and the preparation thats happening around the country.

How Important are the TABLES? answer "VERY"

From the tables we manned to date, we are hearing many different stories and situations, and there has also been a few sad CYFS stories. If you hear any SAD CYFS stories please take details and forward these contacts to Family First.

The tables also remind the public, I have lost count of the number of people who have gone out of their way to encourage us to continue and are also encouraged that not all NZer's are being apathetic.

There is one special lady in Howick, Barbara from Precepts, we met her at one of our tables, unfortunately Saturday tables are very hard for her to support, from our last Howick table we had a number of the public respond saying that "I have already signed, it was Barbara from Precepts ." Well done Barbara.

I attended a meeting of about eight men in Howick to explain the purpose of "Unity for Liberty", two of the men had first hand contact with our tables, people do notice.

Recent collections over the past week include a very successful campaign in Hawkes Bay at the A & P show, they collected 1246 signatures in three days. If there is anyone in the Hawks Bay area who would like to assist in any further campaigns please email our coordinaters at hawkesbay@unityforliberty.net.nz

In South Auckland we had tables in Papakura and Howick, these tables collected 1495 signatures over 5 days .(including Targa Day in Papakura)

Some more Great New Zealand Table Challenge activities, if I have missed your initiative please e-mail me details, Thanks.

Starting from the: North Shore, one Church homegroup are planning a table for the last Two weeks of November

West Auckland, theres going to be a bit of action here, yet to be confirmed

Howick, there should be at least two tables over the four weeks

Mangere, again there is a bit of action here, final plans to be confirmed

Manurewa, in the process of gearing up a mid week table and Saturday doorknocking

Papakura, have one table running mid week when volunteers are available, also a great place for Saturday doorknocking

Pukekohe, gearing up a table for the main street for all 4 Saturdays

Christchurch, there should be five tables running here and looking for doorknocking teams, for further information please email chch@unityforliberty.net.nz

Also a table at the A&P Show.

Invercargill we have a recent registration who will be promoting the collection of signatures through several companies, good initiative.

If you'd like to help with one of the above groups, please email area contact or myself at craig@unityforliberty.net.nz

Here's the equation: 2500 people x 10 signatures per Saturday of November = 100,000 signatures.

Any queries please feel free to contact me
Craig Hill
021746113

www.unityforliberty.net.nz

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

24 October 2007 - Family Integrity #296 -- Ode to Section 59 Petition

The sky is blue, the sun is hot,
Two redheads wait in a shady spot,
In front of them a table stands,
A trusty, stable Bunnings brand.

To a pole and fence signs are taped,
The content of which make people gape,
'What's this about?' a person asks,
'A stupid law has just been passed.'

'Under this law, if you smack your child,
(They don't care if his behavior's wild),
Into your house civil servants will come,
Beating upon their proverbial drum.

'"You smacked your child,' is what they'll say,
We're sorry, we must take your child away,
Because, (and we're certain that you'll agree)
For your child, State care is a necessity."

And that's exactly what they'll do,
Your child will enter a State run zoo,
If you dare to use your parental right,
Your child will be in a miserable plight.

So help us today, and sign the petition,
Make an end to Sue Bradford's ambition,
If you don't do it now it could be too late,
To save our kids from a horrible fate.

by Lydia
 

21 October 2007 - Family Integrity #295 -- More bad news from violent-free Sweden

-----Original Message-----
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:47 PM


I have some devastating news from Sweden, but I haven't had the time to write an article as yet. You see, violence among juveniles - even those belonging to the upper middle class - is at its peek. On October 6 inst. a father shot and killed a 15-yr old and seriously wounded a 16 yr old. The gang of mopedist (motor driven cycle) youngsters had terrorised the man's family for more than two years, their reports to the police were ignored etc. That night the youngsters entered the family's home, threatening then with sticks and other arms and the man acted in self-defence.

Same night October 6, a 16-yr old in Stockholm was clubbed and kicked to death by youngsters of the same age.

June 19, 2007, two 15 yr olds and a 16 yr old torture a handicapped man to death.

The list can be made much longer.

"We are now beginning to see the results of the general lack of standards that the social-democrats made their political agenda during the 1960's and 70's. It was about their views of the family, school and teaching and also about law and justice on the whole", wrote Justice minister Gun Hellsvik and School minister Beatrice ask in their article "Youngsters must be faced with a firm reaction", that was published in "Burning point", in the Swedish Daily on Sept. 5, 1993. The Govt. ministers (conservative) stipulated that Sweden needs a new family policy.

Here are two interesting articles:

Police could have prevented teen shooting'
http://www.thelocal.se/8756/20071011/
By Paul O'Mahony

Governor calls for parental punishments
http://phuketgazette.net/news/index.asp?id=5992
Phuket Gazette

All the best
Ruby
 

15 October 2007 - Family Integrity #294 -- U4L Table Challenge Press release

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:34 PM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: U4L Press release


Press Release

Unity for Liberty calls for calm and action; not hysteria and hype in the lead-up to the next election.

The degree of family breakdown in New Zealand society is evident by the increasing number of brutal child abuse cases that are coming before the courts. There are many reasons for the current level of family dysfunction in New Zealand, but much of it flows from government policy established by the current political leaders. A rampant welfarism and laws that undermine parental authority have worked to dissolve the family unit. We now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation where the same political leaders and public servants, such as Cindy Kiro, are backing harsher sentences for child abuse.

Unity for Liberty sympathizes with those calling for harsher penalties but warns of the danger that now exists where under the current situation good parents are not protected by law. This will mean that the family unit will be further eroded by zealous government staff. It will require more than hype and hysteria to change this situation and turn our society from total disaster. We need laws that will protect and honour the roll of good parents in raising their children. We need to adopt policy that encourages and protects the family unit.

To effect change requires that clam and deliberate steps be made. The first step for New Zealanders is to petition for a citizens initiated referendum so they can have their say at the 2008 election.

To achieve this requires 300,000 signatures.

Unity for Liberty invites all concerned New Zealanders to be involved with 'The Great New Zealand Table Challenge' during the month of November. Download the petition now. Download from http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz Click it...Sign it...Send it.

Any queries please contact:
Craig Hill
m 021 746 113
 

12 September 2007 - Family Integrity #293 -- World Congress on Families Video on line

Dear Friends,

If you have half an hour to spare, please watch this most encouraging video about the Fourth World Congress on the Family recently held in Warsaw, Poland. I nearly travelled there with a friend from California, but couldn't pull it together at the last minute. This Video is filmed by a Latvian group and is in English. Latvia and Poland appear to be the two European countries standing firm against the EU push for recognition of "alternative" family types.

We who value and know that the traditional family is the cornerstone of society, of any nation, and who know that the present anti-family, anti-parent policies of this current government our country is cursed with are only going to self destruct in time, can know from this video that the curse we are experiencing is happening world wide and that there are some very capable people in high places working for what is right.

It may be that someone here in NZ can liaise closely with these groups, keeping us in the loop so that we can be of mutual help and encouragement for the struggles ahead.


http://tinyurl.com/2xjbm8

or

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5785952415094581933&pr=goog-sl


Some of you will not be able to immediately get either of these links to work. I don't know why it is that some people get these links doubled with "<" and ">" added to the front and back of the repeated url. If this happens to you, look carefully for the start and finish of the url before it starts repeating itself, select that group of letters, paste in your browser, and it should take you straight to the 28 minute video.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle
 

6 September, 2007 - Family Integrity #291 -- $14 M ad campaign

Gidday Friends,

Watch this short ad....it is your $14 Million the Government is using to make this ad and to air it on TV and to give Families Commissioner Rajeen Prasad something to talk about.

http://tinyurl.com/3bm4u8

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

6 September 06, 2007 - Family Integrity #290 -- Unity for Liberty; Rodney Report

Greetings all,

Please read the following which I'm forwarding on behalf.

Craig Smith
Family Integrity

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:02 PM
To: Craig
Subject: Unity for Liberty; Rodney Report


Hi All,

Arna Mountain has weaved some magic and is now setting the pace and it's all happening again on Sat 15th Sept(). Here's her report from Rodney's Campaign


On Saturday 1 September from 9-12.00 noon a group of about 30 supporters from Unity for Liberty and Voice Rodney went out on the streets in Orewa, Whangaparaoa, Silverdale and Warkworth. With their placards and enthusiasm they asked people to sign petitions pushing for the two referendums. The group split and went to 4 different locations. Sports playing fields in Stanmore Bay,and outside The Plaza, Silverdale, and the Orewa shopping centre. There was also a group in the Warkworth Shopping area.

Although a little disappointed that so few people turned up we were very encouraged that 1174 signatures were collected in 3 hours.
People stopped their cars when they saw the placards and hopped out to sign the petitions. At times we had a number of people wanting to sign at the same time and they would wait till one the clip boards were free. Some shop assistants came over from the local supermarket to see what we were doing during their breaks. It was obviously a topic of conversation.

I think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of discontent. There are 1000's out there who want to sign these petitions. They no longer want the government to intrude into their family life. They have gone too far!

We were fortunate that two reporters from local papers stopped and wanted photos and details of what we were doing.

I encourage others to start campaigns in their areas. It may seem formidable but 83% of the nation will be behind this and will support you, as many of us are finding out.

We are having another campaign in Rodney on Sat 15 September 9-12 noon. Please join us this time and make a difference. It is not hard to get signatures. Meet again.at 8:40am at Gateway Church Carpark, Red Beach Rd.

Regards,
Arna Mountain

email rodney@unityforliberty.net.nz

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

29 August, 2007 - Family Integrity #288 -- Unity for Liberty; Table volunteer appeal

(Forwarded by Craig Smith for your information).

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:22 PM
To: Craig
Subject: Unity for Liberty; Table volunteer appeal

Hi All,

Unity for Liberty wishes to focus on other areas in New Zealand, we still needs volunteers to man tables in the Howick/ Pakuranga area.

Here's some wise words from one Howick resident when they signed the petition "If I don't sign I can't really complain, can I?"

The same goes for us, if we don't make the effort we can't complain either, funny that, if we don't achieve the target of signatures I guarantee we will blame all those apathetic NewZealanders out there without looking in our own mirrors. Let's not fall into this trap.

>From one table in Picton St last Saturday we received 380 signatures, the Saturday before 360 signatures. We need to keep this momentum going and we do need you.

To all those in the Howick/Pakuranga area we ask you to please consider this appeal seriously.


Unity for Liberty will be very appreciative of responses.

Please respond to craig@unityforliberty.net.nz

Thank you

Craig Hill

Mob 021746113

www.unityforliberty.net.nz

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

23 August - Family Integrity #287 -- Questions to be answered

Dear Friends,

I believe it is essential to have the attached questions about the new Section 59 legislation answered authoritatively in order to let parents know where they stand in relation to their legal responsibilities toward their own children. At present one of the most basic and foundational duties of parenting - correcting one’s own children - appears to be a criminal offense.

Can anyone shed some legal light on these issues? Can anyone suggest a lawyer who would be willing to do some pro bono work on these issues?

Is anyone willing to help form a legal defense association for the defense of the many good parents and their children who will inevitably get caught in this malevolent legislation?

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle


Here are the questions that must be authoritatively answered.

Following the questions are two items for your ease of reference:
1) a copy of the new Section 59 and
2) a copy of the Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03).

Craig Smith, craig@hef.org.nz, http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, http://www.hef.org.nz

August 2007

Number One: What Is Meant by “Correction”?
A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term “correction” is not defined?
B. Does Parliament need to define “correction” before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently “correction” used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of “correction” no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as “discipline”, “training”, “punishment” or “guidance”?
C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for “correcting” their children using a Police working definition of “correction”? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of “correction” once a body of case law is built up and precedents established?
D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that “correction” of a child is more than just “incidental to good care and parenting” (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of “good care and parenting”? Are the parent‘s beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law?
E. Is “correction” now not to be considered part of “good care and parenting” (Section 59
(1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all?
F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” Are parents now to understand that neither “discipline” nor “punishment” can be considered part of “good care and parenting” unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?

Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the term “Force” as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion orculture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong?
B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” What if theparent uses force after the event for the purpose of “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage” at any time in the future “in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence” or “in offensive or disruptive behaviour” as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59?
C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading “Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting”, it says, “The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential”. This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)?
D. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?

Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?
A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail?
B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?

Crimes Act 1964
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 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).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution."


Police Analysis and Guide
2007/03 - Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009

Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the
Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes 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.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.

New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(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).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Analysis of the New Section Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
• age of the child
• maturity of the child
• ability of the child to reason
• characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
• the circumstances that led to the use of force.

Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.

Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s59(1)(d)).

Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) — nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.

Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
• running across a busy road
• touching a hot stove
• inserting a metal object into a power point
• striking another child or person with an object.

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a
child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at
types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; ...
2. Hurtful, injurious ...
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting ...
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption ...
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.

Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that AreIincidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children.
For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under
this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.

Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member's supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.
Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in
the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
• establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
• where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
• depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the
discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.

Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child
Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre.
The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.

Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the
appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be
more appropriate.

Howard Broad
Commissioner
 

23 August - Family Integrity #286 -- Unity for Liberty; Howick volunteer invitation

Greetings all!

I'm forwarding this on behalf of Unity for Liberty. Please give this your serious consideration.

Thanks.
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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


Hi All,

An appeal to all concerned citizens in the Howick/Pakuranga area.

"SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?"

21 August 2007 - Family Integrity #285 -- Does Freedom Work?

Dear Friends,
Here is a 4 Minute & 34 second podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony explaining why social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy. There are two options: freedom with its attendant insecurities of ups and downs or total security which is slavery.

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/freedom.html

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

18 August 2007 - Family Integrity #284 -- hate speech effects

Gidday all,

You may remember the homosexual lobby saying that if Section 59 is repealed, they would know they'll have no problem passing hate crime legislation. They won't introduce any just yet since Labour made a deal with UF's Peter Dunne that they'd not introduce any hate crime legislation until after the next election.

They have good reason for being confident....if parents cannot stop the state from usurping their authority over their own children, who will stand up to stop hate crime legislation?

Here is a film of 9 minutes 11 seconds which shows what kind of injustice goes on in the UK, and what we may have in store in the near future.




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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

13 August 2007 - Family Integrity #283 -- Feet on Footpaths (sign the petition) campaigns

For the next two Feet on Footpaths campaigns

1 September 2007
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events


Christchurch Feet on Footpaths Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/1-sept-christchurch.html


The Rodney Feet on Footpaths Awareness Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html
 

13 August 2007 - Family Integrity #282 -- U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow

To Encourage everyone in relation to signing the petition to bring the outlawing of parental authority (as was done by the rewrite of Section 59) up as a referencdom at the next election, read the following.

Craig Smith
Family Integrity


-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:08 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow


Hi All,

The 2nd Howick/Pakuranga Campaign was an extreme success, not only did we gain more signatures but it was the reaction from the public that speaks volumes.
We soon discovered that the first campaign had primed many to stop and sign this campaign. (at one stage I was forced to carry two clip boards)

This was the reaction from those who had been primed from the first campaign, "I saw you LAST WEEK and did not stop, I'm not going to miss the opportunity this time".

The significance of this reaction is this, EVERYONE who witnessed our first campaign referred to it as LAST WEEK, it was two weeks ago.

FEET ON FOOTPATH campaigns are styled to impact the mind in this way - clearly it succeeded.

Two young men stopped to sign, asked where they can obtain petition forms so they can take them to Auckland University. Another woman drove past the first campaign, arrived home, then decided to return to sign, only to find that we had finished. She was relieved to see us back. She too thought it was LAST WEEK.

The best part for myself were the cups of coffee supplied by local residents.

The LAST WEEK impact is how I measure the success of FEET ON FOOTPATHS but for those who may measure success by signature here it is. We came home with 380 signatures, the first campaign ran at 1.72 signatures a minute, this one came in at 2.11 a minute, some volunteers had to withdraw at the last minute so we achieved MORE WITH LESS.

Looking forward to the Rodney and Christchurch campaigns on the 1st Sept, I encourage you to support both Arna and Andy who are coordinating these events,they are good people working hard for all New Zealanders.

The more FEET the better, any queries please contact.

Will post more details concerning the 1st Sept campaigns on Wed 15th Aug

Craig Hill
021746113
craighill@maxnet.co.nz
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
 

9 August 2007 - Family Integrity #281 -- U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug

Greetings all,

I'm forwarding this on. Do be involved if you can.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:11 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug

A recent Sue Bradford statement

Did you ever imagine there would be such a strong reaction over the"anti-smacking" bill?
B. Worthington, Auckland

It is not an "anti-smacking" bill. I regret that early on the media picked up and promulgated this description, which solely reflects the views of the bill's opponents. It is, among other things, an "anti-beating" bill.

IS THIS YOU, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LAW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN AGENDA.


Hi All,

A quick and gentle reminder, Feet on Footpaths this Sat 11th Aug between 9-12am.

We do need more feet. A number of volunteers could only spend an hour due to prior engagements, they were well rewarded for their time.

If there are any queries I would encourage you to email, it was an incredible campaign last time out and there is no reason it won't be the same again.

The Howick/Pakuranga campaign will be in the Cascades Rd area, if you are in the area make a point of driving past, wave or stop for a chat, be great to see you.

Regards

Craig Hill

www.unityforliberty.net.nz
 

7 August 2007 - Family Integrity #280 -- Our Threatened Freedom

Dear Friends,

Are Parents Being Abused?

Listen to this short podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_35.php

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

6 August 2007 - Family Integrity #279 -- Unity for Liberty; New initiatives

Greetings to all!

I am forwarding this on behalf of another Craig, one who is encouraging us all via "Unity for Liberty".

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

Hi All

Information on future campaigns, there is some very exciting initiatives.

Unity for Liberty is very excited to be able to work in conjunction with Voice Rodney and announce Arna Mountain as the coordinator for the Feet on Footpath Rodney campaign, details are on the second attachment http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html. Arna is bringing a lot of encouragement and enthusiasm, lets support her efforts.

You can contact Arna by email rodney@unityforliberty.net.nz

There is also an initiative in Christchurch, more information will be released shortly.

Craig
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz


Hi All
"Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
If your answer is "no", then you are probably concerned at the removal of parental authority and liberty.

On May 17th 2007 the House of Representatives voted 113 to eight in favour of the legislation that repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act and effectively turns you, a loving and responsible parent, into a criminal. Thus, this law seriously erodes and undermines your parental authority, while at the same time empowers the bureaucracy of the State to intrude in the life of your family.

If you were among the approximately 83 percent of New Zealanders who were opposed to this bill and you may be interested in campaigning with us.

Voice Rodney in conjuction with Unity for Liberty will conduct a Feet on Footpaths campaign on 1st September. See http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz plus attached (below) documents for more information.

The benefit of the Local Awareness Campaigns is to transfer the debate, which has until now been limited to central government and mainstream media, into the local communities. Please read the attached here...http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html documents and email me your response as soon as possible.

I need each group to appoint a person who would be responsible to report to me to get final instructions on 1st September on where to be. We will meet and debrief at the end for a few minutes, sharing stories.

Here are some comments from last weeks campaign in Howick

I decided to knock on the doors of people in our street to see if anyone wanted to sign the petition. I left my house after 12 noon, so there had been plenty of time for people to see the placards that were clearly visible in our area...and they had! It was fun to hear these comments from our neighbours:

"Oh, so you are with those people holding up those signs. Good on you!"
"So this is the petition that all those signs are on about!"
"It's great to see someone doing something about this situation. People in New Zealand are so apathetic!"

Dear Friends,

Below is a notice of a Conference designed to place children at the center of public policy. That sounds great! But there are, sadly, very sinister implications.

First, children will be considered as autonomous units, apart from and idependent of their families, whanau, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. Parents will be sidelined and their ability to exercise their parental responsibilities will be severely reduced and compromised.

Second, the catch phrase is 'best interests of the child". Who determines that and by what criteria?

Let me quote from a very recent NZ book (2006) "From Innocents to Agents: Children and Children's Rights in New Zealand" by Michael Reid:

"All members of the community are being encouraged to value and protect children. But there are also less obvious implications for parents and teachers in the new rights-sensitive culture. For example, when rights clash [between those of a child and of its parents, for example], who's the boss? (pg. 9).

There is an interesting poll on the Anglican Social Justice website you may be interested in. It is on the right hand side.

Go to: <http://justice.anglican.org.nz/>

(Here are the current results):
Poll
NZ has an appallingly high rate of child abuse. How do we reduce it?

Stop forcing fathers out of their children's lives.1
2356% of all votes
Share the Gospel1
717% of all votes
Invest more in parental education
410% of all votes
Increase incentive re paid employment1
37% of all votes
Bring back corporal punishment
25% of all votes
Focus on the causes: alcohol, drugs, poverty etc 1
12% of all votes
Dismantle government school system and return the responsibility back to parents.1
12% of all votes
Total Votes: 41 Started: Aug 3, 2007

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

2 August - Family Integrity #276 -- Garth George Commentary

Dear Friends,

Here is some great commentary by NZ Herald journo Garth George.

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/media_02.html

He is on the money when he points to the flood of violence and immoral sex on TV, and the abortion industry. But he misses the boat in saying there is a lack of will in enforcing truancy laws. State schools are a major contributor to the problems of family breakdown and increasing violence. They forcibly separate parents from children at an early age and then, with no reference whatsoever to the individual family cultures/values/religions represented in the classroom, the teachers pump the children full of politically determined "values" and "attitudes" that are often not just contradictory and foreign to those of the family, they are often openly hostile to family values and attitudes. Children are alienated from their parents. This has been going on for several generations and has been so successful, this alienation is now considered normal. Too many parents have lost the art of parenting because they've let the pre-school, daycare, school and after-school activities and youth groups and the peer group do it for them. When issues arise, parents do what the last two or three generations have increasingly done: assumed they themselves are not qualified to deal with it, so refer it to the school counselling office or some other "professional".

And this is not a new problem. Schools have noticed it, so have brought on board more counsellors and assigned teachers and counsellors pastoral roles as well as teaching roles. Many schools now have full time social workers. The more the schools have moved into this area of pastoring children, the more parents have given away their own pastoral duties toward their children (urged on by the school and their own business of life). And the more these two things have happened, the worse the problems have become. These generations now raised up with state agents rather than their parents as the major source of counselling and advice are the ones bashing up their own children at greater rates than ever before.

When state agencies get involved in areas they should not be involved in (such as compulsory schooling and counselling and social welfare) the problems inevitably get worse and begin to multiply. The state's universal answer: throw more money at the problem. The problem simply gets worse.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

31 July 2007 - Family Integrity #275 -- Govt has radical plan on child abuse

Dear Friends,

Here are two press releases from today which make it clear, if it wasn't already, that New Zealand has crossed over the line into a socialist totalitarian regime ruled by an elite group (MPs), 50% of whom, because of our MMP electoral system, are not accountable to the voters of any electorate. The behaviour of these MPs over the last few legislative issues (banning of smacking, legalising of prostitution, setting up civil unions) demonstrates that we do not live in a democracy, for the MPs have dropped all pretense of giving any heed to what the vast majorities (80-90% in these three issues named) of voters wanted. Note how every family is suspect and will be questioned to see if they are perhaps innocent. New Zealand used to have the legal understanding that you were innocent until proven guilty. No more.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

(When reading these, always remember that "violence" includes any form of smacking/spanking regardless of the context plus any force whatsoever no matter how light or reasonable if the force was used for the purpose of correction. Sadly "correction" is not defined in law here, so it is not clear what is meant, although the police have issued guidelines which indicate that it includes "discipline" and "punishment".)

Greetings all,

Here below is some great commentary on Section 59, pointing out the kind of ugly stuff we have to look forward to.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


The Anti-Smacking Bill -A Test And A Prelude To Persecution

Why is it for Bradford and Clark that the enemies are always Christian "Fundamentalists"?
Garnet Milne

The anti-smacking, anti-parenting bill is a test and a prelude. It is a test to see if parliament will pass legislation which especially discriminates against Christian values-in this case the Christian biblical warrant for using corporal punishment in child rearing. It is a test because if it succeeds then more intrusive legislation against Christian values will follow. This will involve hate speech legislation aimed at churches and private schools which teach morality, especially Christian moral teaching which criticises homosexuality, divorce, abortion, religious idolatry and adultery as being morally repugnant. The social engineers who control the reigns of power have a deep hatred for God, His people, and His Law.

The Fabian socialists* have been building up to this for a considerable period of time. They have succeeded in decriminalising homosexuality and in order to do so they were very cunning. They used an argument that it wouldn’t hurt non-homosexuals, because they were not being compelled to agree with homosexuality. They argued “live and let live”.

Once they had achieved this victory, the neo-pagans realised that their real goals were within their reach, but the argument they had used to achieve the decriminalising of homosexuality was no longer sufficient. They had argued that the Christian public were not being compelled in anyway by laws sanctioning homosexuality, later prostitution, and in the not too distant future euthanasia. The social engineers realised that in order to achieve their real goal of suppressing and criminalising Christian morality, not just count it as one legitimate expression of morality in a free society, they would need to first get immorality normalised and sanctioned as morally acceptable. Once that had been achieved the social engineers would move into the next phase (which is happening right now) and begin to push legislation-on a gullible and largely apathetic public, legislation which would actually punish and thereby marginalise the Christian voice.

For those with the eyes to see, there is ample evidence that this is taking place in New Zealand. Once the neo-pagan Fabian socialists have succeeded in criminalising ordinary parents who smack their kids, they will move onto hate-speech legislation directed against Christians especially who speak out against homosexuality and false religions such as Islam, among other evils. This trend will only be checked if Christians return to faithfulness and begin to apply the Christian faith to all of life, holding evil politicians accountable for their scurrilous misuse of political power.

Christians will need to unitedly dissent from the present political system as a testimony against this evil, and then agitate for a recommitment to our historic responsibility as a nation in covenant with God, a status inherited from our British roots. A piecemeal approach to applying Christianity only as far as the neo-pagans will let us is a dead end. Only a radical social revolution will stem the tide of Fabian socialist legislated evil, a vile blot on our nation’s brief history. This revolution must begin with the nation’s believers uniting in an attempt to recommit ourselves as a covenant nation under God. Playing lobbyists, while necessary to maintain a witness or testimony against evil, will never be a sufficient to achieve a real and lasting victory for truth and peace in our time.

*“Fabian” is a name taken by early socialists in the UK from a Roman general (Quintus Fabius Maximus) whose tactics involved wearing the enemy down through attrition by harassment rather than direct confrontation in classical battle array. Fabianism is therefore the doctrine of gradualism in politics.

This page printed from: http://reformationtestimony.org.nz/Essaysa/Corporal/TestPrelude.html
 

30 July 2007 - Family Integrity #273 -- Dangerous Precedent

Dear Friends,

Consider the following poll results of this morning:

<http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/183/Default.aspx>

Should police have more powers to seize children at risk of abuse?
Yes 86%
No 12%
Not sure 2%

(Results as at 10:35am Mon 30 July 2007.)

The stories of abuse and death of children in the home are horrendous, and calls for action are needed and welcomed.

What kind of action is needed? This poll intimates that more police intervention is needed: intervention BEFORE any injury or crime has been committed. This is a very dangerous precedent. All parents will come under suspicion. Suspicion -- mere suspicion, not actual facts or real behaviour -- will be the criteria for police intervention. And Police intervention in relation to children means CYFS intervention and what they call "alternative placement": that is, your children are taken away and given to someone else.

The Police already have the power to break into homes and remove children, using whatever force in necessary, WITHOUT a warrant, if they belive the child is in immanent danger (see Section 42 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989).

It is during times of crisis and when the public mind is very angry at such ugly crimes as we've seen against wee children in the last few weeks that the state can be given -- in a very unwise, reactionary way -- license to remove more liberty, license to give more unnecessary interventionary powers to agents of the state.

Regards,
Craig S. Smith
 

28 July 2007 - Family Integrity #272 -- Family First Press Releases

Greetings

Here are two press releases from Family First that I thought worth sending onto you:

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/27-july-2007-family-first-calls-for.html
My comments with this one are: "So much for the strong message Bradford and Kiro insisted was being sent by rewriting Section 59. All the law change did was put all good parents in the firing line, unsure what force they are allowed to use and for what purpose, for the state has taken away from parents that discretion and authority."


http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/28-july-2007-family-first-5-point.html
Just a bit of caution: Bob's ideas still make the state the final decision maker, since the state is called upon to fund 4 of the 5 steps outlined.

Regards
Craig Smith
 

18 July 2007 - Family Integrity #271 -- FEET ON FOOTPATHS

Greetings

If you are going to be in Auckland 28 July you might have time to help out with this campaign.

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/sat-28th-july-feet-on-footpaths.html

FEET ON FOOTPATHS
SAT 28TH JULY, 9am to 12noon
The Howick/Pakuranga Awareness Campaign


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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

6 July 2007 - Family Integrity #270 -- Larzelere's parting comments

Dear Friends,

World expert on corporal correction Dr Robert Larzelere visited NZ earlier this year. If you haven't already done so, you must read his parting comments (reproduced below)as he left NZ just before the final vote which criminalised it here in New Zealand. Very sobering reading.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


NZ’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World
Dr Robert E. Larzelere

After 28 years of research, I came to New Zealand on behalf of her children, her parents, and her ethnic and religious minorities with the boldest claim I have ever made in the public arena: “There is no sound scientific evidence to support a smacking ban.” The best evidence the Children’s Commissioner could muster against that claim on the Campbell Live TV program was about my written reply to an anti-smacking article in a scientific journal 14 years ago - not because of its content, but because the journal was sponsored by a Ph.D.-granting Christian university! How could someone as knowledgeable as Dr. Kiro emphasize such a ridiculous criticism? She got that criticism from her Canadian consultant Dr. Joan Durrant, the Pied Piper who wants to lead New Zealand’s children to the Swedish utopia that she could not lead her own country’s children to - because the Canadian Supreme Court retained their country’s version of Section 59 after considering both sides of the scientific and legal evidence.

What does this Swedish utopia look like? One year after Sweden’s smacking ban, 3% of their parents admitted beating up their child - 2 to 5 times higher than the overly high American rate. Physical child abuse increased almost 6-fold during the next 15 years, according to Swedish criminal records. Criminal assaults by minors against minors increased over 6-fold during that same time period. The ability of parents to enforce appropriate discipline continued to erode until only 31% of 10- to 12-year-olds thought that parents had the right to use grounding in 2000. All these statistics come from Swedish anti-smacking authors.

Even more worrisome, the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties, although the government’s politically clever but inconsequential concession gives police the discretion not to prosecute mild offences. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.

The New Zealand bill’s proponents claim that missionaries were responsible for introducing smacking and bashing to the Maori and other South Pacific peoples. The irony is that they are doing the same thing they accuse missionaries of - imposing a European philosophy of child correction on native ethnic groups - this time enforced with criminal penalties. In addition, the gap between what will be technically criminal and what will be prosecuted opens the door wide for discriminatory enforcement.

The bill is motivated by a commendable desire to reduce child abuse, but it will make it a crime to bring the most effective treatment for abusive parents to New Zealand. In a review of 20 years of treatments for abusive parents, eminent abuse researcher Dr. Mark Chaffin showed that none of them turned out to be effective. He then developed a new treatment that decreased recidivism of child abuse charges from 49% to 19%. It will be a crime to bring that treatment to New Zealand, however, because it includes a non-smacking type of force to enforce time out.

Everything seems backward to me in New Zealand - people drive on the left side of the road and are now preparing for winter instead of summer. And it is the liberals rather than the conservatives who take absolutist positions and impose their values on everyone else, including over 80% of Kiwis who oppose this ban. They also show little cultural sensitivity toward others who are different in religion or ethnicity.

The pervasive confusion about what will be permitted under the new law makes the pre-existing law allowing parents “reasonable force to correct their children” seem reasonable indeed, although it needs to be updated to clearly exclude physical abuse.

As Bill Clinton said of abortion, smacking ought to be safe, legal, and rare. His successor had an overly optimistic view about invading Iraq because they heard only one optimistic side of the scenarios. Now our country is in a quagmire with no good way out. For the sake of New Zealand’s children and future, I hope they have a better exit strategy than George Bush.

With this bill, New Zealand will leapfrog the field to ban more forms of traditional disciplinary enforcements than any other country. But their ban runs counter to scientific evidence, previous experiences with similar bans, and the wisdom of previous generations as far back as we can remember. It illustrates the world’s increasing inability to work out well-reasoned balanced positions rather than forcing people to choose between polarized extremes.

As I prepare to leave New Zealand, I have difficulty holding back the tears whenever I see its beautiful children, knowing they are about to be victimized by the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history. I feel like the engineer who predicted that the O-rings on the Challenger space shuttle were likely to fail, but no one would listen. His tragic prediction proved all too accurate. I hope I am less accurate about the forthcoming failure of New Zealand’s smacking ban than that engineer was.

Dr Larzelere is Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, and was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction.
 

25 June 2007 - Family Integrity #269 -- Christian School comment

Dear Friends,

Here is an interesting comment from a Christian School principal on the Police guidelines in relation to the new Section 59.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


WYCLIFFE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

21 Domain Road, Panmure, Auckland 1072
NEW ZEALAND

PHONE 09-570-5873 FAX 09-570-5877 Mr Drake 021-66-9796 EMAIL mld@carey.school.nz

22 June 2007

ADVISORY NOTICE TO SCHOOLS

CORRECTION OF PUPILS AT SCHOOL IS NOW ILLEGAL

Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.

From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.

If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.

There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting “in the place of parents”. The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.

A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.

Schools need to note that “force” is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.

The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).

State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.

Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the “general law” of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.

Private Schools’ powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.

We strongly advise schools to:

1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children

We also recommend that as part of schools’ citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.

While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.

In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.

That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the “appropriate” laws, “inappropriate” behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.

But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.

Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.

Michael L Drake
Director
 

21 June 2007 - Family Integrity #268 -- Police Guidelines

21 June 2007

New Zealand’s new “anti-smacking” law, due to come into effect tomorrow, Friday 22 June 2007, will make it a crime for parents to use any force whatsoever with their children, regardless of how reasonable or light, for the purpose of correction.

The following consists of:

1. A brief press release by the NZ Police.
2. A lengthy analysis of the new law change and practice guide for Police Officers written by Police Commissioner Howard Broad.
3. Section 6 of the Act which changed the law promising a review of the legislation after two years.
4. Another press release today showing further concern by Police.
5. Web address for petition forms to demand the NZ Government hold a referendum on the issue at the next elections (November 2008).

20 June 2007 - Family Integrity #267 -- A poll on the law change


http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/tabid/184/Default.aspx?ArticleID=29214



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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

20 June 2007 - Family Integrity #266 -- Apology and Clarification in relation to #265

Dear Friends,

This is in relation to the last Family Integrity Mailout #265 -- Thinking of Going Off to Auzzie?

Please forgive me. I apologise. I have made an error of judgement in the way I introduced this subject. It sounds as if I am recommending that people leave NZ...that was not my intention.

It was unwise and unhelpful of me to send out that email with an introduction that made it sound as if I was promoting the idea of fleeing the country.

Please let me say it plainly: I am not promoting the idea of leaving NZ to go to Australia.

I had been asked by a number of folks about the possibility of moving to Australia and so decided to collect some information. Those who asked about the possibility of moving to Australia specifically asked about the smacking laws and the home education laws. Consequently I specifically addressed these things in that last email #265.

Lord willing, I will write something about how we can respond to this law which makes it a criminal offense to correct one's own children if it involves the use of any level of force at all. Whatever commentary I may write will of necessity also deal with some of the implications of this new legislation...and yet the implications are also rather vague due to the complete lack of definitions of most of the key terms in the law and the lack of any case law as yet.

Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for stirring up unnecessary fear or warnings to flee the country. We each need to soberly assess the situation and work out what to do.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

19 June 2007 - Family Integrity #265 -- Thinking of Going off to Auzzie?

Greetings!

OK, I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but here it is anyway:

Below is a lot of information to help folks get started on their investigations of the opportunity to shift to Australia to escape the galloping interventionist socialism we are curesed with here in NZ.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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


Brief Comments from others:

I can't tell you much about Melbourne, but we are looking at going to Queanbeyan which is on the NSW side of the ACT state line.
The NSW law was changed a couple of years ago but rather than throwing out their version of section 59, they defined what was UNreasonable.
This included 2 items - one that a child could not be physically chastised above the shoulders, and the other is that a smack cannot leave more than a transitory sting - no lasting injuries. Some people wanted to outlaw the use of implements, but this was thrown out.
Both NSW and ACT have homeschooling written right throughout their education acts also, making it an ingrained part of their laws, rather than just the one law we have, that could easily be struck out just like section 59.
As far as rents go, go to http://www.realestate.com.au they have rentals and sale properties. It is also worth checking out the likes of <http://mycareer.com.au> for jobs.
Hope this is of some help.
Blessings
C….(in NZ)


We have just moved to Ballarat which is 1.25 hrs west of Melbourne. Ballarat has about 80,000 people. VIC has NO H/E rules so you just do what you want and don't have to tell anybody.
There are a number of towns and cities in VIC. Bendigo is a nice city about 100,000 I think and property isn't much dearer than Ballarat. Shepparton (2 hrs north of Melb) is nice too about 25,000 and similar market to Bendigo.
Melbourne is extremely expensive to buy a house, like $400,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house. Ballarat is about $160,000-$200,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house and rent is about $200 for the equivalent.
Cost of general living like food and fuel is about the same as NZ. Fuel is actually cheaper. Vans are ludicrously expensive and few and far between. Make sure you have $15,000-$25,000 for a reasonable van, not the $5,000-$10,000 like in NZ.
Sell all your belongings on Trademe and go garage saleing here. We did and got some good stuff and cost less than what we got for our stuff in NZ.
Hope this helps
Blessings
M…(in Oz)


About 80% of homeschoolers in Queensland aren't registered. Large families are also not as common, even amongst homeschoolers.
I hope this helps
B….(in Oz)


I have just been doing some research on homeschooling in Victoria, and it appears that the laws are set to become quite controlling in the middle of this year. After M……'s email regarding the ease of homeschooling laws there, I thought it would be pertinent that you know of the changes. These can be viewed at
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/victorianlegalinformation.pdf

Here are the things that worried me most:

8 Requirements of instruction in home schooling:
It is a requirement of registration of a child for home schooling that the child must receive regular and efficient instruction that-
(a) taken as a whole, substantially addresses the following learning areas-
(i) The Arts;
(ii) English;
(iii) Health and Physical Education (including Sport);
(iv) Languages other than English;
(v) Mathematics;
(vi) Science;
(vii) Studies of Society and Environment;
(viii) Technology; and
Note: These are the learning areas set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.
(b) is consistent with the principles underlying the Act, being the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to-
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance.
Some of these strike me as plain dumb, and others appear to be saying we must teach homo-friendly views to our kids.
C……(in NZ)


Websites About Immigration To Australia
<http://www.immi.gov.au/>
<http://www.workpermit.com/australia/australia.htm>
<http://www.immigrationmag.com/?user=4693>
<http://www.migrationexpert.com/australia/>
<http://liveinaustralia.com>


Table Regarding Smacking Laws in Australia

I have spent hours trying to find out the smacking laws in the different Australian states, and have just found this link that gives a brief summary, followed by a table at the bottom of the page:

<http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/australia.html#key>

Blessings
C….(in NZ)


Email Discussion Groups about Immigrating to Australia
http://kiwiaussie.freeforums.org (I think this one was set up specifically for those thinking of leaving since the Bill to ban parental authority was passed.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustralianImmigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiozim/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationtoaustralia/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/australian_immigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-immigration-advice/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Australia-First/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AustraliaMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TaniMigration/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asaconsultants/


Brief Review of Home Education Laws in Australia
“Many of us cannot see NZ as a viable place to rear a Christian family any more. Anyway, there are now a growing number of people asking about which part of Australia we can flee to.”

Hmm, I am not sure that is a wise way to be thinking. The changes to s59 alone would seem to me to be insufficient cause to "up stakes" and migrate to sunny Oz - "the land of the long weekend" and where Global Warming hysteria is such that we made Tim Flannery our Australian of the Year. Such major upheaval could be a case of 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'.

We have our own difficulties here, too. Australia was a sponsor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the 1980s, and I was involved in some rearguard defence at the time - to no avail. It's sad to have all your arguments vindicated by 20 years of creeping socialism.

Although for now our assault laws in the Crimes Acts of each jurisdiction still include a defence of reasonable force, there are irregular rumblings from the anti-smacking brigade here too. So it might only be a year or five years before the battle is joined here.

As you would be aware, this is all part of the attack on the family - God's institution for revival.

See <http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/12/motherhood-madness-why-mums-are-not-really-mums/> and especially the link to the original article in The Australian found at the end of Bill's article.



“People want to know about the home education laws in the various states.”

The shortest answer is that as of today:
a) all States except Victoria (where we are) regulate home education by requiring parents to obtain permission to educate their own children.
b) all States except Victoria require parents to complete forms, submit curriculum plans and be inspected regularly.
c) Within this framework, the diligence of inspection etc varies, so that in order of preference, it is "easiest" in a pragmatic sense to home educate in:

Victoria
New South Wales
South Australia
Tasmania
Western Australia ?
Aust Capital Territory
Northern Territory
Western Australia ?
Queensland

[In the spiritual sense, it's almost all the same except for Victoria which is about to change. Our spiritual freedom has been compromised by an interfering governmental humanism.]

As from some date soon - probably July 1st, Victorians will have a new Education Act proclaimed and we will have to register to home educate our children.

The above rankings will remain as we will not be required to have regular inspections.

However, we must keep sufficient records to show that we are observing the 8 Key Learning Areas, and the motherhood statements in the Act (democracy, tolerance, rule of law - all the usual UNO guff).

Inspections will occur only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that we are not fulfilling the requirements/conditions of registration.

We fought hard last year against all this, but to no avail - and now this same Labour socialist government was voted back in (as opposed to the Liberal socialist Opposition who couldn't 'lay a glove on them') and we are literally running out of water for the population!

It is timely that in our church we are studying the prophecy of Joel - it certainly speaks to Australia's current situation.

Hope this gives you some data.

Christian Regards,
John & Marjo Angelico
Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
P O Box 310
Mount Waverley
VIC 3149 AUSTRALIA
ABN 77 007 423 734
Phone +613 9544 8792
Fax +613 9544 2328
talldad@kepl.com.au
http://www.kepl.com.au



Websites of Australian Home Education Groups
http://www.kepl.com.au/howtostart.html
http://www.australianhistorypictures.com/
http://homeschoolaustralia.beverleypaine.com/
http://www.design-your-homeschool.com/HomeschoolinginAustralia.html
http://www.theac.org.au/
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/
http://www.hbln.org.au/
http://homeschooling.com.au/
http://sahome-ed.beverleypaine.com/
 

16 June 2007 - Family Integrity #264 -- War Against Children

Greetings!

Please listen to this 3 minute analysis of "The War Against Children" by the late Dr R. J. Rushdoony of Chalcedon Institute, Vallecito, California.


http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/603567


In Christ's service,


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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

14 June 2007 - Family Integrity #263 -- School Newsletter

Dear Friends,

The writer of the attached (below) school newsletter gave me permission to send it further afield -- to you all. I reckon his analysis and recommendations of the situation (before the Bill to Criminalise Parental Authority was passed) is very insigtful and helpful.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle

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


Tyndale Park Christian School
206 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Manukau 2016. Phone 274 9771, Fax 274 9772

27 April 2007

Dear Parents, Staff, Pupils and Friends,

If we are not of this world, we will be hated by this world. If we believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 15:19 “I have chosen you out of the world” then we should not only be aware but even experience that the world hates us!

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19.

“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” 1 John 3:13.

Why are Christians - jailed in Eritrea, murdered in India, missing in Sri Lanka, facing trial in Uzbekistan, buried alive in Sudan, have their houses burned down in Pakistan, executed in Indonesia, beheaded in Sulawesi, tortured in Vietnam, martyred in Iran, stoned to death in Nigeria, imprisoned in Belarus, or starved to death in North Korea? Because:

1. They no longer have freedom and are persecuted for their faith in these countries and in many other countries.
2. They love their Saviour and are “not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ” (see Romans 1:16).
3. They are persuaded that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (see Acts 5:29).
4. They realise that the world hated their Lord before it hated them (see John 15:18).
5. They are not willing to compromise in their testimony.

Dear Friends,

This is the kind of thing (see story below #1) I suspect we'll see a lot more of now that the state has established a beachhead in each of our living rooms to tell us we cannot correct our children if they don't want to be corrected. Helen Clark said a while back she doesn't mind marginalising Christians (see below #2). The problem is, most people agree with her since the media have been successful in demonising all Bible-believing or fundamentalist Christians as if they are the West's version of Osama Bin Laden. They conveniently forget, and we Christians are generally too polite to sound our own horns, that we are virtually alone in trying to protect the unborn, in wanting more adoptions, in signing up as foster parents; we are disproportionately represented in fights against the evils and excesses of homosexuality, civils unions, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse and gambling and abortion; we are over volunteer organisations and the Bible specifically commands us to help the poor and needy, which means there is far more help going on that is totally unseen and unrecognised. We are not the only ones involved in these things, but without the Biblical mandate to do these things, secularists would have no logical reason and don't have any moral reason to do so...unless they borrow from Christianity, which we are quite happy for them to do.

Regards,

Craig Smith


#1
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4078437a11.html
Answer sought to MPs' prayer
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 31 May 2007

Parliament's daily prayer is in the spotlight as MPs are being asked to decide whether it should be abandoned or rewritten.


Before each sitting day, MPs bow their heads for a prayer in which they vow their loyalty to the Queen, and promise to lay aside their private and personal interests and promote the maintenance of true religion and justice, before ending with reference to "Jesus Christ Our Lord".

Speaker Margaret Wilson has written to MPs asking whether the prayer should be continued and, if so, whether the wording needs an overhaul.

The timing of the move may be seen as provocative, after a backlash from some Christian quarters over Government support for the child-discipline bill.

This week's interfaith dialogue at Waitangi has been marred by protests over a statement that New Zealand has no state religion.

However, there may be little stomach among MPs for a change, with some suggesting that Parliament has more important business.

One Labour MP said the prayer had been recited for more than 100 years, and there seemed to be no pressing need to change it.

National MP Bill English said the prayer should be kept.

"It's part of the tradition of Parliament unbroken since it started, and it's the only time of the day that politicians are forced to think about something besides themselves."

Green MP Keith Locke said the prayer was outdated and did not represent the views of a substantial proportion of society.


#2
This is Helen Clark being interviewed by sodomites and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:

Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?

A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.



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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

25 May 2007 - Family Integrity #260 -- Royal Assent has been granted

25 May 2007 - Family Integrity #260 -- Royal Assent has been granted

Dear Friends,

The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.

That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.

Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have "re-education" programmes or new "safety" programmes to help children understand their rights. I've talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this "anti-parent" message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn't want to do.

Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more well known. I've attached it for your convenience (I can't add attachmaents so it will be a link just after Craig's signature). Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to -- regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate -- because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don't want others putting the ideas in your children's heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their "homes", some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children's minds with insane ideas. I'm not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise "correction" even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it's not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.




Now, the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,

"I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children's issues using processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems."

I'd have to agree: we've come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National's John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children's issues. Kiro's job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.

Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: "Who's in charge when it comes to children? ...[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare...If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors."


Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After congratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:

The best results occur when we intervene early in the child's life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater."
I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential," says Dr Kiro.

This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively -- and compulsorily -- assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro's Information Hub and can be accessed by various "professionals" such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)

So, just as the Children's Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they've said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy...there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, "They Tyranny of the Small Steps".

We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we've seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don't have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense...and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children's Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That's also part of the social engineering scheme.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)
 

21 May 2007 - Family Integrity #259 -- World Congress of Families

Dear Friends,

Here is some encouraging news about a world wide movement in the RIGHT direction for a change. You can sign up for regular email updates from this crowd.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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



Press | The Howard Center | World Congress of Families | Family Manifesto | Family Update | Subscribe | Change Address | Unsubscribe


THE WORLD CONGRESS of FAMILIES

PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release: 18 May 2007, Rockford, Illinois

CONTACT: Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or (cell) 513-515-3685 or Don Feder at 508-405-1337

WEBSITES: http://www.profam.org, http;//www.worldcongress.org, http://www.worldcongress.pl or http://www.familymanifesto.net



WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES IV ISSUES WARSAW DECLARATION

At its closing session, the 3,000-plus delegates to World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, May 11-13) endorsed the Warsaw Declaration - a pro-family credo for the 21st century.

With the family under attack in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, delegates felt the urgent need to set forth basic principles for the international pro-family movement.

The Declaration notes that, "The natural family, creation of God, is the fundamental human community, based on the life-long marriage between a man and a woman, in which new individuals are conceived, born and raised."

In the words of the Declaration: "Such families bring to the world today:

* Faithfulness to the Divine truth versus relativism;

* Real love, being the complete and impartial gift of oneself, versus hedonism;

* Faithfulness in love throughout life, versus lack of responsibility toward those closest to us;

* Respect for the life of every human being from conception to natural death, versus discrimination against and extermination of the weakest;

* Joyful responsibility for every child-to-be, versus fear of the child expressed in the contraceptive mentality;

* A moral community in which young generations can grow, versus false ideologies propagating demoralization;

* And, last but not least, the 'springtime' of a civilization of love and life, versus 'demographic winter.'"

The Declaration issued a number of calls, including for:

* "Churches and other religious communities to proclaim the truth about life, marriage, and the family ...."

* "Governing and political bodies to mainstream the family in public policy as a fundamental and inalienable social good, in order to serve their own nations."

* "Health professionals to uphold freedom of conscience and to faithfully safeguard human life, especially when it is weakest and most threatened."

* "Young people to seek wisdom, to choose life, to preserve their hearts and body, and to grow with a focus on truth and faithful love."

World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson noted that, "The Warsaw Declaration does not contain specific policy recommendations but instead offers a broad vision of the natural family as 'the fundamental human community' and creates a framework for pro-family activism."

The complete Warsaw Declaration may be found at http://www.worldcongress.org/WCF4/wcf4.dec.htm.

To schedule an interview with Allan Carlson on the Warsaw Declaration or any other aspect of the recently concluded World Congress of Families IV in Poland, contact Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or 1-800-461-3113.

NOTE:
1. If you would like to receive this email and be added to the Howard Center mailing list: Click Here to Subscribe http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/sub/wcf_update_sub.htm

2. Please invest in our efforts to reach more people with a positive message of family, religion and society. Click Here to Donate Online http://profam.org/THC/xthc_join.htm

3. Please remember the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in your will. Click Here for Information bequests@worldcongress.org

4. If applicable, please add us to your 'approved', 'buddy' or 'safe' list to prevent your ISP's filter from blocking future email messages.


THE HOWARD CENTER for FAMILY, RELIGION & SOCIETY


Copyright © 1997-2007 The Howard Center | contact: webmaster
 

18 May 2007 - Family Intetrity #258 -- Section 59 Petitions campaign: Chch Netball courts, 9am Saturday

Hi Christchurch!

If you can please make the time to meet at The Netball Courts, Hagley Park (off Hagley Ave) Click here for a map at 9:00am on Saturday 19 May , as our plan is to do a big Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) campaign.

Our goal for Saturday is 2,000 signatures (200 full sheets), but we expect to exceed this. Please make this a good turn-out by coming, and telling anyone else you know who would be keen.

Let's make sure that we do get enough signatures to force a referendum, otherwise you'll be looking back wishing, kicking yourself that you didn't do more to get rid of this stupid bill. I will be too.

We plan to start off at the Netball courts, Hagley Park. Later, if people are keen, we will head into the CBD, or find another good spot to get more signatures. There will be plenty of people: you don't have to stand anywhere by yourself, it will be great.

We are going to have some placards, and a table or two.

BRING:
Please try and bring a clipboard, something for people to press on as they sign the petition.
Please also download about 10 or 20 Petition sheets from here, and bring them with you.
Please bring 2 or 3 pens with you as well.
And bring/make some placards if you could. Ideas for signs below. It is important that the wording conveys as much information about what is happening regarding the bill, as is possible.

"The Anti-smacking bill will still criminalise good parents"
"Get rid of Bradford's anti-smacking bill. Sign Petition here"
"Should a smack as a part of good parental discipline be a criminal offense? No!"
"Sign Petition here to force referendum"

Not only will this Saturday be an important day for the CIR, it is a great opportunity to let the rest of Christchurch know that the debate has not died down.

Please forward this email on to anyone who is interested, to spread the word around.

Please reply to theboybiggles@gmail.com if you do intend to come.

Regards,

--
Andy Moore
http://www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED
 

17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #257 -- A very brief summary

All parents who correct their children will from now on be committing a criminal act, and liable to prosecution.

Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford's bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.

The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.

Don't be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don't believe me.

'Nothing' [in the rest of the bill] 'or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.'

Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.

The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.

It's now the people against Parliament.

by Renton, Porirua
 

17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #256 -- NZ to be declared religiously neutral

NZ to be declared religiously neutral  
Dear Friends,

Hard on the heels of radical legislation passed yesterday which will make parents criminals for correcting their children, our Prime Minister is now going to officially push our Christian heritage off the stage.

Attached for your information.

In Christ's service,

Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Fax +64 6 357-4389
craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.hef.org.nz

Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

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

17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #255 -- Legal opinion from Family First

Dear Friends,

I'll just forward this from a Family First press release:

Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking - despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #254 -- Send thanks

Dear Friends,

Please do take a moment to send your thanks to the following MPs who voted against the bill.

United Future had a meltdown, losing one of its three MPs, Gordon Copeland, who resigned over this bill and is now an Independent, as is Taito Phillip Field (who resigned from Labour). Judy Turner voted against the bill and contrary to her party's leader, Peter Dunne.

ACT's two MPs voted against the bill...the only party to wholly vote against it.

NZ First was split, these 3 voting against the bill, the other 4 voting for it.

The most disappointing of all is National, all of whom voted for this bill. I feel utterly betrayed by them.

However, these 8 listed here deserve our warm thanks.

Gordon Copeland, Independent: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Taito Phillip Field, Independent: taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
Rodney Hide, ACT: rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
Mark, Ron Mark, NZ First: ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz
Pita Paraone, NZ First: pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz
Rt Hon Winston Peters, NZ First: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Heather Roy, ACT: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz
Judy Turner, United Future: judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #253 -- Post Mortem

A truly sad day for New Zealand.

The final vote in Parliament was 113 in favour and 8 against the bill to criminalise parents by making the correction of children a criminal offense, a subset of assault, worth as much as two years in jail.

The passage of this bill has tipped New Zealand into the cauldron of socialist totalitarianism. This is more sophisticated than the old USSR technique of ruling by sheer terror and sealing the borders. This new version weakens all resolve by offering every financial support, even for the most irresponsible of lifestyles (the excesses of the social welfare system), and then it controls children's affections by the intense indoctrination of the compulsory secular school system and ease of access to all manner of inappropriate viewing and listening media, and then it controls parents by threatening through CYFS and other interventionist bureaucracies to take away even their few hours of caring for their children each day, after the schools have already robbed them of their affection and loyalty.

“If the major political parties had allowed a conscience vote on this bill as originally promised, the bill would have been dead and buried at the 2nd reading,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “It is tragic that while the government turns a blind eye to the major problems of gang violence, drunken teen parties, the ‘P’ epidemic, violence in schools, violence towards police, gambling addiction, housing concerns, and breakdown in families, they have found plenty of energy and time to pass a law that targets good parents doing a great job.”

Bob forgot to mention the abortion industry which encourages mothers to pre-meditate upon killing their own children and the assisted suicide and euthanasia movements which want to change the public's attitude toward death from the curse that it is, brought in as a result of the original sin of our original parents, Adam and Eve, to a welcomed friend, one that would soon be introduced to babies born with even the most minor defects, including the non-preferred gender, and into hospital practice for the helpless, the cantakerous, the demented. And let's not forget the porn industry, which is defiling more and more school children on and off campus. All these things promote a culture of death and despondency, purposelessness and meaninglessness. But they foment dysfunction, and that helps fire up a perpetual motion and income-generating circus of social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, counsellors, foster agencies, foster homes, women's refuges, politicians and innumerable child-advocacy groups, all feeding off this increased dysfunction. Sadly, none of these groups ever focus on working themselves out of a job.

A Family First press release tells how a leading QC has recommended to parents that, now Bradford's bill has passed, they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour. This new Section 59 makes child correction a criminal act. Grant Illingworth QC said, “The difficulty...is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child [actions allowed by this new Section 59]. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”

Mr Illingworth went on to say that this is of enormous importance, for if a parent intended to "correct" a child's disruptive and offensive behaviour, and this intention came to light in the course of an investigation, that parent would have no defense against a charge of criminal assault, even though the force used would appear identical to that which another parent might use simply to prevent the continuation of disruptive and offensive behaviour.

“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”

What Now?
One must evaluate one's options in the light of whether one's child rearing practices are likely to be incriminating and whether they are likely to come to the notice of either CYFS or the Police.

A police officer informed me last night that they will have to investigate any reported case of force used to correct. This will obviously be an interpretation on the part of whoever makes the complaint. But because this kind of complaint will fall under the category of "domestic violence", and the police have a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence, they will have to investigate. Remember, this includes a lot more than mere smacking. It is about any use of force: taking a child's arm, hand, shoulder to direct them in a certain direction when disruption, offense, criminal activity or harm are not at issue; confinement against the child's will; requiring dress and grooming codes to conform to your tastes when the child objects and a large section of society would find nothing offensive in the child's choices; and prohibiting your children from associating with persons or visiting premises about which you do not approve but which are not illegal or obviously harmful.

Parenting must start early. Train your children to think and believe and react as you do from day one. Do not expose them too much or too early to worldviews and ways of which you do not approve if you do not want them to develop a taste for them or a desire to try them out. Sending one's children to public schools takes on a very serious set of implications as a result....you must be prepared to have your children adopt ways of thinking, dressing, grooming, speaking, obeying, disobeying, attitudes and values that are not your own, for you will be virtually powerless to correct them. If anyone knows how to correct error or misguided or inappropriate or unhealthy or unwholesome or undesirable or ways that are just plain wrong....if anyone knows how to effect correction without the use of any kind of force, many others would like to hear about it. It appears to me that parents will be reduced to advisors of autonomous children. From my reading of UN documents and particularly of Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim, 2006), that is precisely the objective of those behind this bill.

Some have suggested we get the Governor-General to withhold the Royal Assent.
I clearly recall that then GG Sir Paul Reeves signed into law a bill that forbids the GG from withholding the Royal Assent. He was GG from 1985 to 1990. Actually, I've had a look around the internet and can find no evidence of this, although I clearly remember it being discussed in the news of the day.

I did find this however:

"The last time a Monarch refused assent to a Bill (no Governor or Governor-General has ever done so) was during the reign of Queen Anne in 1708." (http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/2006/09/telling-lies-for-her-majesty-royal.html) (There is some very informative discussion on this website.)


"The Queen reigns, the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives" This is the simple rule that keeps things ticking along. Until the Parliament votes itself dictatorial powers and abolishes elections, the GG will not withhold Royal Assent.


From: http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=167, speech by Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys, 24 May 1996:

(Start Quote)
Constitutionalists differ as to what these powers [of the Governor-General] might be. I will give you five. There is no doubt about the first. Some would doubt the last. The five are:

(1) to appoint a Prime Minister;

(2) to dismiss a Prime Minister;

(3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament;

(4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and

(5) to refuse assent to legislation.


Examples of the use of all but the first of these powers are rare, and are always controversial. Indeed, the very rarity of their exercise gives rise to contentions that they have ceased to exist at all. That is particularly true of the last of them.
(End Quote)


So it would appear that we can forget thinking about that route.


What are some other alternatives?

I have already received copies of letters people have sent to MPs stating clearly that they will not obey this bill if it is passed into law. This is one way to react: simply disregard the law and be prepared to suffer the consequences. These include prosecution and a criminal record. Such a record will bar you from travel to some overseas destinations....the USA, for example, will not issue a visa to people with criminal records. It will bar you from certain occupations and job/career opportunities. But the most frightening prospect is having CYFS take your children. This will break your heart, crush your spirit, drain your assets and drive you deep into debt. And it is likely your children will also suffer REAL abuse at the hands of CYFS and foster homes.

Another is to decide to modify your child-rearing practices to what you think the law may be saying. This is extremely difficult for nobody knows what it says. It will require a number of test cases to establish precedents and definitions. Each test case, I would suggest, will represent another family chewed up and destroyed by this process.

Another would be to become very discreet about how you operate, that you train your children not to talk about anything that goes on or is discussed within your home. (Oh, darn....how does one train a child...would that not include correction and force?) You may want to monitor all your children's conversations. Again, children spending so much time at school, away from your guidance and influence, takes on a new perspective. Teachers, of course, will be instituting new safety programmes and children's rights programmes which will spell out to children what their parents can and cannot do. The legislation that was just passed is extremely vague, but the programmes in the schools will not be vague: they will be clear and extreme. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 of June 2006, outlines how all "academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups", etc., must be recruited in the monitoring of the implementation of laws such as the one just passed. This document equates any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, with violence, abuse, cruel and degrading punishment. (It is a fascinating read, 17 pages, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.)

One may also consider emigration to Australia. NZ passport holders only need to get on a plane. Once there you can stay as long as you like and take up employment immediately. There are only some social welfare benefits that would not kick in till you've been there for two years. Native English speakers can get jobs teaching English in local schools in many places in the world with few or no qualifications at all. I know people who have done exactly this in China, South Korea and Turkey. Those countries are not likely to have such insane legislation passed as we've just had any time soon. The USA and Canada are also possibilities. The USA has a lot of red tape to cut through to gain residency, but untold numbers of Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Americans have been pouring across the border for over 30 years virtually unchecked and seem to get permanent residency and jobs with little difficulty.

I'll have more information on Australia in another post soon.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #252 -- The Petition

Dear Friends,

Also: Be sure to sign, if you haven't already, the petition to get this issue to a national referendum at the next election. You'll find the petition in today's (Wednesday 16 May) NZ herald, Dom Post, Christchurch press and Otago Daily Times.

Please also snip these petitions out of the paper and go to your neighbours and at least fill in the 10 signatures of both parts of the petition. Then send it in to the address indicated.

If we get 300,000 signatures on this petition (and we're well over half way already) by Feb or March next year, 2008, it WILL BE an election issue, forcing the MPs to revisit this bill regardless of how the vote goes today.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #251 -- Section 59 - Please send one last email by 2:00pm today

Greetings All

This is our last email to you before the vote for the most extreme anti-smacking law in the world (according to Dr Robert E Larzelere).

There will be a two hour discussion before the vote today.

I spoke to three different offices in Parliament to try to determine when the discussion and vote will be. It wont start before 4:00pm and may not start until after the tea break 6-7:30pm.

You can listen to the debate and to the voting here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/parliament

While talking to one office, the secretary told me that of all emails the MPs have received, they have consistently been 80/90% against the repeal or amendment of Section 59. Around the time of the first March on Parliament they received about 30 emails from those who are for repeal. So even since the amendment the emails are consistently against repeal. At the time that I was talking to the secretary she looked at the inbox of an MP and all 16 emails were against repeal.

Let us all send one last email to the MPs even if it is just "Please Keep Section 59" or "Section 59 - Vote with your Conscience" in the Subject line. The MPs need to know that we are against this right up to the end. That the 83% of us have not been swayed by Key, Clark and Bradford. The amendment is no protection for good parents. It is the world's most extreme anti-smacking law. If the MPs want to be in Parliament at the next election then they should vote against this Bill. Information on sending emails is at the end of this email.

16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #250 -- May God have mercy



Dear Friends,

Today our Parliamentarians vote on a bill to make it a criminal offense for parents to correct their own children. The term "correct" is not defined. It will make any act of physical discipline, training, chastisement and possibly much more into a criminal act of assault, worth as much as two years in jail, regardless of how light or reasonable the force used, and regardless of the child's act of disobedience or destructiveness or dishonesty or disrespect, and regardless of any other circumstances. It is not even clear if it is only in relation to physical force...it could apply to moral force, verbal force, intimidation, removal of privileges, grounding, time out.....nobody knows since none of these things have been defined or delineated. The Bill appears certain to pass, barring a last minute miracle.
All parents in this country will become criminals who are simply awaiting the time when they will come to the notice of the police (teacher asking children at school which of them gets smacked, an angry child or nosey neighbour or vindictive relation reporting, etc.). We talked to a police officer yesterday who confirmed to us that any such report they will have to act on as it will be considered an act of "domestic violence", a category of crime for which the police have a zero tolerance policy.

Please email or phone your MP one more time today. May God have mercy on us all.


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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

14 May 2007 - Family Integrity #249 -- Section 59: Police and CYFs are not to be trusted

Greetings

Only two days until the vote on Wednesday 16.

Here is some URGENT reading for you which clarifies some of our concerns about Section 59. We can't trust the Police or CYFs as our Government plans to vote on the the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world.

1. Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says "...the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties .... Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents." Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html

2. "However, this provision (the new amendment in Section 59) does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services (CYFs) who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/14-may-2007-united-future-nz-party.html

3. Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html

Please do not grow weary during these last hours. Please contact your MPs URGENTLY. Thursday will be too late.


Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz

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


1. Lobbying tools
We need to let the MPs know that we, the majority, do not agree with this re-written Section 59. If you have never written a letter or email to an MP before then now is the time to do it.

EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links several times over the next 11 days:

http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm

or

http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413

or

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls

LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington


FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf

PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf


VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby. We are fast running out of time for visiting our MPs. Only one Saturdays before May 16. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf

Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved



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


2. You can read much commentary about Section 59 here:

Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/


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

3. "Re-written 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 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).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.


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

12 May 2007 - Family Integrity#248 -- Two excellent video clips

Dear Friends,

Two excellent video clips on Section 59


Jason, 11, speaks out.



Pator Peter Mortlock at Wellington Rally on Section 59: At last, some clear and rational words of truth!






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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

5 May 2007 - Family Integrity #244 -- 3 items

You''ve got to read these 3 items:

Bradford wins complete s. 59 victory
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=112
May 2nd, 2007

Bradford and Clark must be howling with glee and derision. They’ve outlawyered (not to mention out-politicked) opponents of their Bill.
The ‘compromise’ words have no legal effect. They merely “affirm that the Police have a discretion not to prosecute“ - meaning that no new discretion is added, only the existing rules and duties apply.
Worse - to escape prosecution the smack must be “so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution“. Those words can’t have had competent legal consideration from any opposing lawyer.
At the technical level “no public interest” is ludicrous. Of course there will be some public interest in almost every incident. 20% of the population have a passionate interest in forcing the rest to change their child rearing beliefs. That 20% has made it illegal to smack.
There will of course be immense public interest in test cases, and passionate views that it is in the public interest to bring them. The more “inconsequential” the smack, the more deterrent impact a successful prosecution will have.
To disqualify any prosecution it should have said something like “no reasonable public interest” or “no useful purpose would be served that outweighed the public interest in avoiding prosecutions that bring the law in to contempt”.
And then there is the contempt shown for our constitutional traditions. It is fundamental to our law that it is not for the Police to decide what the law is, or ought to be. It is their job to uphold it.
Now the leaders of Parliament are telling the Police to ensure that the courts do not get to consider where the law’s boundaries lie. Here is Parliament cold-bloodedly passing law it does not want enforced.
Any wonder why our criminals think the law is a joke, and we have among the highest levels of violent crime in the Western world.
For years I was the only MP prepared to debate this issue publicly with Ms Bradford. I went to public meetings all over the land with her. She is good company.
But she has the ruthless Marxist view that the ends justify the means. She lied happily about the legal effect of the Bill, on the basis that it was in a good cause. Now she’s drawn the rest of Parliament into legal deceit.



A Friend in Wanganui says on 5 May 2007:

One thing to be remembered with respect to the degree of force -
"inconsequential" must be determined in the light of what is "in the public interest." Note that the public does not determine what is in the public interest - the police do, then perhaps the courts might have a say. This Bill has been promoted on the basis that it is in the public interest for parliament to disregard the public's conception of what that interest is - nanny state decides. Here's the rub! The Police Commissioner is a political appointee - the Police (like CYFs) set their own criteria internally. Howard Broad might not like implements, but he readily admits that others in the Police may have different views so that there will be some diversity of application.
When Howard leaves, then what? If some feminist zealot police Prosecutor makes examples of parents - then what?




Friday, May 04, 2007

Back from the Principal on smacking
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/05/back-from-principal-on-smacking.html
I visited the principal of my children's school this morning to discuss the issue of my youngest child's class being asked by their teacher yesterday as to what happened to them at home if they were naughty.

The principal didn't seem disturbed by this but he's going to find out why the teacher asked. He didn't indicate whether or not he thought it was appropriate or not, and it seems there is nothing that can be done to stop teachers asking this question of children.

The upshot is, any person can report any child to CYF if they feel a child is at risk of emotional or physical harm. There is nothing the principal can do if a teacher decides that smacking constitutes physical harm and decides to report it.

As this is a Catholic school, I gave him a copy of the Bishop's statement (http://www.catholic.org.nz/statements/0704children.php, initially blogged by Mr Tips, http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/05/hope-springs-eternal.html), containing the following key sentences:

However, we also recognise that alongside the need to protect children’s safety and wellbeing, there is also a need to protect the subsidiarity of families, which means government should not interfere unnecessarily with decisions that families are able to make for themselves. Family subsidiarity should be respected unless a child’s safety is at risk. We do not see minor and infrequent acts of physical punishment as putting a child’s safety at risk.

I also asked when it comes to a conflict between our faith and the government, what takes precedence in a Catholic school. He said for him, the faith would, but he knows of a number of Catholic school principals that would most likely report parents for smacking.

There are also school programmes for keeping children safe, and he thinks it's likely that smacking will be included in those programmes. That means, that school children will most likely be told that they are not to be smacked as this is harmful to them.

At this point, I'm not really sure what to do next, apart from waiting to see what the teacher's reason for asking was.

Right now, I'm very, very disturbed.



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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

5 May 2007 - Family Integrity #243 -- This makes me ill

Gidday all,

This kind of thing makes me ill. The big sell-out. These folks will relax over a latte. Many of us will be in panic mode, stressed to the max with sleepless nights, wondering how we can live in a country that says it is illegal for us to correct our children.

http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/05/welcome-to-machine.html

Please continue to write furiously to the MPs and paper editors.

I have been reminded by the Timaru riding crop lady that the Police are required to report any incident of "family violence" that comes to their notice. Once the bill goes through, even the lightest, most reasonable force used to correct your child (which under the present S.59 is the ONLY LEGALLY JUSTIFIED force you may use with your child), will be classed as "family violence". In addition, the Police are often FORCED by CYFS to prosecute, even when they don't want to. That was the case with the Timaru lady. That was also the case with Don & Ann Eathorne in Karamea last year....CYFS forced the Police to prosecute an incident that happened a couple of years earlier...they were convicted of the most minor of smacks to an open hand with a wooden spoon, because the judge felt a message needed to be sent to the NZ public. And now this exemplary couple have a criminal record, preventing them from travel, from work in many areas, etc. A true miscarriage of justice.

Another good comment on this business in at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00093.htm

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

4 May 2007 - Family Integrity #242 -- PM wants to marginalise Christians

Dear Friends,

I need to add another quote to go with the last post, #241.

This is Helen Clark being interviewed by homosexuals and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:

Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?

A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.


Here we have the Prime Minister saying it is an acceptable practise for the Government to marginalise certain people groups.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

4 May 2007 - Family Integrity #241 -- Remember who we're dealing with and two reasons to fear

Dear Friends,

The question is: what do we do now that John Key and National appear to have completely surrendered the country to the radical feminist-Marxist agenda of Labour and the Greens by agreeing to an inconsequential amendment to let them get Bradford's anti-parenting bill through?

Let's just review a few quotes to bring into focus the nature of the people we are dealing with in parliament. And then we'll review a few facts:

A Collection of Quotes from Key, Clark & Bradford
"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary" -- John Key, press release, 18 April 2007.

"I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don't discriminate. I'm no supporter of these hard right religions."

"Personally I have no problems with Civil Unions... there was an argument put forward that civil unions would undermine marriage, and I never believed that line....We have friends who are a gay couple bringing up children, I would support any gay or lesbian couple bringing up children, I would hope for them what I want for any children and that is for them to give the best parental instruction and love and attention that they can for the children that are in their care.....I don't care what people's sexual preferences are, It's for them to determine that....as far as I am concerned, is their business and their business alone."

Sexual 'preferences?' There's that scary word beloved of fundamentalist preachers. Does Key believe that we glbt people exercise a choice over our sexuality? "No. I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behavior, personally I believe that is crap. The only way I can express that is that I am not gay and that is not a conscious decision I made, it's just the way I feel. I assume that gay people have other feelings."

(These three paragraphs are from a 3 December 2006 interview with John Key at: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/templates/Political.asp?articleid=1587&zoneid=3. I'd like to point out that paedophilia and necrophilia and bestiality are other sexual preferences and I'm sure they too "have other feelings", John. So do you not care about those people's sexual preferences either?)


“Marriage has a lot of inappropriate connotations. It carries associations with religion, belief etc. My personal interest is in a secular society and I think a civil unions bill is very important….” - Helen Clark - Express Magazine 11 February 2004

NZ Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark says the Government’s role is whatever the Government defines that role to be. - Dominion Post 4 March 2003. Spoken in reply to a question as to whether it was Government’s role to fund the next America’s Cup challenge to the tune of $5.6 million.


“[Remember] 2002, and Clark’s now infamous comment at the state banquet for the Queen that “New Zealand is now a secular country”, and grace would not be said at the meal.” - Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.


“I felt really compromised. I think legal marriage is unnecessary and I would not have formalised the relationship [with husband Peter Davis] except for going into Parliament. I have always railed against it privately.” -- Helen Clark, Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.

Retired political studies lecturer Ruth Butterworth, a long time friend of Clark’s, is quoted in Brian Edwards PR-piece, Helen, remembering the black mood at the “wedding”.
“She was resistant up to the last minute. I mean, she was crying on the day. It was just so awful because it was so deeply against her principles.” -- Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.


Sue Bradford brought us: lowered drinking age and decriminalised prostitution. She tried to give us a less-dangerous classification for "P" and lowered penalties for child pornograpy. She is all for legalising marijuana and not requiring birth mothers to name the fathers on the birth certificates. She justifies this last item with the following words straight from Hansard of 1 March 2007 (see http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_03_01.htm) in a debate on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill:

"...If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father - whether they choose to or not.”

“Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby, which would probably be covered by the "undue distress" exemption, there are a
range of other situations where women may not wish to have the father of their child's name registered.

"One is where the woman is in a same-sex relationship, wants her partner to share parental responsibilities, but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted
reproductive technology. Another is where the woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile, but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where the woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement financially or emotionally from another parent. These are all reasonable choices for women to want to make, and choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 proposed by this Bill, they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make.”

“... This aspect of the Bill is nothing short of draconian - it makes criminals out of women who wish to make choices to raise their children without the involvement of their biological father. ”

(It seems to me that Bradford's ideology is so foreign and radical to anything average New Zealanders understand as normal and healthy that she is not to be taken seriously. Yet she and Clark are running the show and people like Key can't help themselves from falling in behind.)


There are at least two aspects of this Bill which are to be feared:

Correction, deemed even today in law to be "justified" or "right", is soon to be thoroughly condemned as wrong. Why is this? What's the evil in "correction" that this bill is trying to "correct"?

In spite of the grand amendment to the re-write of Section 59, please note that whereas the old Section 59 said parents were "justified" -- had done what is right and therefore could not be held guilty -- in using reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their own children, in this Bill the use of any force for the purpose of correcting your own child (that is, not just smacking) is clearly and emphatically declared to be outside the law. It is referred to even in this wonderful amendment itself as an "offence", even when it is inconsequential. The correction of children by parents is now legally condemned if one uses any force above the level of "inconsequential".

So what is "inconsequential" force when used for correction? I would suggest it is force that has no consequences; that it failed to correct the child's behaviour.

The debate has raged over smacking, and so the focus is on physical force, but the bill condemns simply "force". Smacking is not mentioned in the re-write of Section 59, so someone looking to prosecute parents for "correcting" a child may consider any kind of force in any form. Until this is defined or limited to only physical force, what other kinds of force will be ruled illegal, and how many families will have to be destroyed by the justice system's machinations in order to get those precedents and definitions. (Yesterday's post quoted Police Commissioner Howard Broad saying that they will get there, using the courts and the Police Complaints Authority...an indication that it will take time and a number of families as fodder for the court's grist mill).

Now force is at the bare minimum: to force the parent's will upon that of the child. It can be physical. I would suggest it can also be moral force, appeals to tradition or one's faith or religious or philosophical or ethical or cultural or ethnic practices, withdrawal of privileges, grounding, reasoning, striking a bargain, etc. These forms of force might be considered positive and reasonable and valid by most. But if a clever lawyer ever names any of these as a form of force that is more than inconsequential -- that is, use of this form of force actually corrected the child -- then surely that parent has committed an offence...the offence of correcting a child using force.

Until "correction" and "force" are defined in law, anything can happen.

(As an aside, other forms of force that most would consider negative and unhealthy include verbal scolding and character assassination and emotional manipulation, intimidation, threats, isolation, humiliation, etc., etc. One of these is more likely to be affirmed in a court of law as an illegal use of force for correction. Because it is not physical force, the door is then opened to specifically condemn also the positive and reasonable forms of non-physical force mentioned earlier, if they succeed in correcting children. It appears that with this bill, correcting children, no matter how it is done, will be forever after classed as a crime, one that merely awaits a legal precedent to be set by some anti-family, anti-parent lawyer testing such a prosecution of correction by non-physical use of force in court. It will happen one day.)


Having a reasonable doubt normally acquits people in court. This bill requires a court to convict people when a doubt exists.

It is obvious that it is "correction" that is being written into law as a criminal activity, not the use of "reasonable force". "Reasonable force" was said by Bradford to hide all manner of severe beatings and abuse. But she did not remove the term "reasonable force" from the re-write. Instead it is now right there in subsection 1 of the Bill before Parliament, and is said to be justified when used to do all sorts of things to children, but not to correct them.

The really scary part of this bill is that subsection 2 condemns the correction of children and then subsection 3 requires that subsection 2 prevail over subsection 1. (The entire re-write is reprinted below.) So if a nosey neighbour accuses you of abusing your child and you end up in court defending yourself, if the court cannot determine, that is, has doubts about whether the force you used was for correction of offensive behaviour or for prevention of offensive behaviour, because they have a doubt, subsection 3 requires the court to make the corrective interpretation prevail over the preventative interpretation. And since the court is required to find that you used the force to correct your child, you will be convicted of child assault, worth as much as 2 years in jail (see Section 194a of the Crimes Act).

Maxim Institute also makes a helpful analysis of this amendment at: http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=994. They also agree it is totally useless.


Re-written 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).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.


So What Do We Do Now?

Same as before: lobby your MP furiously and every other MP as well.
Castigate John Key from one end to the other.
Demand that they define "correction".
Ask if this forbidden "correction" is the same as "discipline" or "training" or "chastisement".
Ask them if it is true that contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will now be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose of the force used?
Write these same questions to your local newspaper editors.
Ask these same questions on talk back radio.

Pray for God's deliverance from this disaster.

Update your passports. Reactivate your Australian contacts.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

3 May 2007 - Family Integrity #240 -- National whipped its MPs!!!!!!!!!!

This is bizarre. Parliament is run by deranged madmen. Read this from Rodney Hyde http://www.rodneyhide.com/

Confusing times
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill.

Good on John Key I thought. He’s taken the high ground and made a difference. That’s what I thought. Until I saw the amendment.
It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it’s Helen Clark!! This amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms “inconsequential” and “public interest”.

Then John Key wips the National Party caucus to vote for it. So now Labour and National are voting for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. The criticisms National made of the Bill still stand except now they are all voting for it.

But get this: I move Chester Borrows’ amendment last night because he wouldn’t. That defines clearly what is allowed and what is not. National voted against it, including Chester.

It must be the jet lag or something. I can’t figure it out!

Here is an interesting exchange with Chester:

I ask Mr Borrows whether it is true that the police have a decision not to prosecute.
Chester Borrows: Yes.
RODNEY HIDE: So this does nothing to Sue Bradford’s bill?
Chester Borrows: No.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

3 May 2007 - Family Integrity #239 -- More on the Amendment and what they're saying

Greetings all,

I posted a slight error yesterday about this new amendment being co-sponsored by Labour, Greens, National and UF.

Here is the full SOP (Supplementary Order Paper) which introduced it to the Parliamentary process:

http://tinyurl.com/ysgz5o

It says that the amendment is actually going to become part of the new, re-written Section 59. Yesterday I said it would simply be part of the bill changing Section 59, but not part of the re-written Section 59 itself. I was in error.

So what difference does that make? I believe it makes no difference. Key and Clark say it makes all the difference in the world. Bradford says it makes a very slight difference.

To get one's head around all this stuff, one needs to watch the two video clips listed here. Be quick, because they don't stay on these websites for long.

Close up Wednesday 2 May 2007 with Simon Barnet, Helen Clark, John Key & Sue Bradford, under title, "People power or political brinkmanship."

http://tinyurl.com/94r9b

and

TV3 Wednesday 2 May 2007, Police Commissioner Howard Broad, under title: "Destiny and the 'anti-smacking' legislation"

http://tinyurl.com/2hwpe2

The CloseUp clip shows Key saying the bill was going to pass as it was and would criminalise every parent who ever smacked. "The Bill is [now] better than it was from our perspective. We don't believe that good parents will be criminalised. But let me say this Mark: If once the Bill is passed, if good criminals...er...good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking their children, and I become Prime Minister of New Zealand, we will change the law."

I am going to shamelessly focus on Key's slip of the tongue, calling parents criminals. Simon Barnett says in the clip above that Parliament has treated the parents of NZ with complete contempt. And this is why. They hold us in contempt. Every thing Bradford and Clark and even Key says on this is that Section 59 had to be changed to make NZ a less violent place. Now remember: Section 59 is only even raised as a defence 1.4 times a year and over half of those are found guilty.

So what is their problem with Section 59? I thought it was the provision for parents to use "reasonable force" with their children and that Kiro and Bradford and the pro-repealers were all saying that severe beatings and abuse of all kind were hiding behind this label of "reasonable force". But then we find that Bradford's re-write of Section 59 DOES NOT get rid of the "reasonable force" provision.

So what IS their problem with Section 59? It is that Section 59 says it is RIGHT ("parents are justified") to CORRECT their children. Bradford's re-write of Section 59 emphatically says that for parents to CORRECT their children is WRONG. Her bill's outstanding trait is that it creates a new crime: correction of children with the use of even the most reasonable level of force.

The police are instructed in the Bill (but Police Commissioner Howard says they always have it) to use discretion. But this discretion is to be used, if they want to use it.....they don't have to.....when they come across "offenses" (parents using force to correct their children) which are "inconsequential". Clark says a couple of times that the law should not and will not, because of this amendment, "concern itself with trifles". They make it clear that any use of force that is not "inconsequential" is unacceptable violence.

At the original press conference to announce this amendment, a reporter asked Bradford if light smacking was now OK. Her response: "Not it's not. Not at all."

At this same press conference, Key said, "The Prime Minister and I put politics aside and let sanity prevail." As I heard someone else say, "This Prime Minister NEVER puts politics aside." Key went on to enumerate National's three objectives in this: 1) That parents can have confidence they won't be criminalised for "lightly smacking a child"; 2) police have clear guidelines; and 3) "I think it's a very important step for New Zealand in becoming a safer and less violent community."

They all agree on this: that Section 59, which says it is RIGHT for parents to CORRECT children, is what is causing NZ to be a violent society! Key is saying all us parents ARE already criminals. Bradford and Clark have been saying it over the past month or six weeks ever since Labour MP Russell Fairbrother circulated a bizarre opinion that smacking has been illegal for over 100 years.

The amendment will be subsection 4 of the new re-written Section 59, so it will look like this, barring any new amendments:

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).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

Note that subsection 4, this new amendment by Key, Clark, etc., refers to "an offence involving the use of force against a child". That is the offence of "correction". It is not an offence to use "reasonable force" on a child to minimise harm, stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when the "reasonable force" is incidental to good care and parenting (subsections 1a through 1d). The offence in using ANY force with a child is when the purpose of using the force is correction (subsection 2). The amendment says the Police have the option, the luxury of turning a blind eye, if the force used for correction, which is a criminal offence according to subsection 2, "is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution." But they don't have to ignore it, because subsection 2 does define it as a crime, regardless of how inconsequential it is.

John Key says that means light smacks will be ok. Bradford insists that light smacks are never ok. In the CloseUp clip, Bradford says, "The Police will still investigate, I hope, every report of assault on a child and that is as it should be." She then said the amendment was "a direction to Police making it clear that Parliament is saying if the offense is totally inconsequential, that Parliament is not expecting that the Police should feel that they must prosecute."

Light smacks that are inconsequential MIGHT be safe from prosecution, but may not be safe from investigation and reporting to CYFS, as Simon Barnett points out on the CloseUp clip. Once CYFS gets involved in a child investigation, life as you know it comes to an end. As talk-back radio has been saying: Police who do nothing about an investigation into an inconsequential incident with parents A & B will be hung if later on that same A & B severely abuse the same kid. So Police will investigate if it comes to their notice and will probably at minimum refer it to CYFS.

Light smacks that are inconsequential are, as every parent knows, inconsequential and ineffective and useless. The smack is delivered in the objective that it will be CONsequential, not INconsequential. That is, effective smacking for corrective purposes under this new bill will be as illegal as ever Bradford wanted it to be at the beginning. The only refuge parents may find, if they are accused and investigated for correcting a child using force, is to make out that their corrective discipline was possibly corrective, but in fact inconsequential; or that it was NOT corrective but instead designed to stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or that it was incidental to good care and parenting.

Yes, I believe correction is an essential part of good care and parenting. And it includes a lot more than light smacks. But it is about to become a heinous crime, one that can be prosecuted under the laws against assault and worth from 2 to 5 years in jail. Force used to correct a child is not just smacking. It includes grabbing my child by the arm or shoulders and marching him to the neighbour to apologise for throwing rocks through his garage window. It includes forcibly taking his piggy bank out of his hands and taking his money out of it to pay the neighbour for the damage done. It includes forcing him to sit at the table and write and re-write until it is done properly a formal letter of apology including an assurance that he won't do such daft things again. And if it means he has to forego tea and dessert that night and any electronic entertainment or communication for a month to force him to do as I require, so be it.

I fielded a number of calls and emails today about people wanting to leave NZ, wondering what it's like in various parts of Australia.

Let me also quote from the video clip above as Campbell Live interviewed Commissioner for Police Howard Broad:

Campbell: Is this "discretion" going to be applied differently in different parts of NZ?
Broad: Yes, it's a human-made decision with 8,000 officers applying it up and down the country. "Reasonably confident that, subject to a small amount of variation, we'll be able to work."
Broad: "There is no mandatory exercise of the powers of the Police. Discretion always applies."
Broad: "What the proposed legislation does is lower the threshhold around what is considered to be the level of force before a prosecution. I think it's actually quite substantially reduced that. And that is going to be where the difficulty is for Police, finding that point. That's where the difficulty will be. But we'll find it, and we'll be guided by the courts, we'll be guided by our own experience; the Police Complaints authority might have a part to play, and so on."

Campbell: Are the use of jug cords and riding crops out of the question now?
Broad: "Clearly in my view situations using implements like jug cords or practically any implement, I think, is now considered beyond what is acceptable. I think it's been actually quite a useful exercise, really, because the country is coming to grips with the causes and the factors associated with violence. And it's publicised and discussed, the use of force, in a whole range of circumstances. I think that's been extremely valuable. I say again that this legislation has reduced the threshhold at which action will be taken. And I think people do have to come to grips with that now."

Campbell: "So people who are accostomed to using things like wooden spoons or any kind of implements have to understand that the law has changed and they can no longer do that?"
Broad: "I think so and also we've got to be extremely careful in those moments when force is applied 'where' to a child. You know, hitting a child in the head for example; I don't think that's acceptable."

Campbell: "But the sort of scaremongering that went on that any kind of smack, any kind of small slap on the wrist or bottom was going to be illegal is now dealt with by this use of the term 'discretion'?"
Broad: "I think so, and the proposal in the legislation 'for the avoidance of doubt' makes it absolutely crystal clear that the Police are expected to apply that discretion for levels of force that are inconsequential. And that is a fairly clear message to the public, if it was ever needed, for the Police."

Campbell: So my summary would be that you think this is about as good an outcome as we could have had?
Broad: I'm actually quite comfortable with where we are.


Now there are some scary things here. He says the threshhold for the use of force has been quite substantially reduced. He's talking about force used to correct, not do the things listed in subsections 1a through 1d. It has been reduced to inconsequential before you MIGHT not be prosecuted should such a use of force come to the notice of police. And Broad says it will be tricky finding that point, but they'll be guided by the courts and the complaints authority. That means it will require family after family to be systematically destroyed by court processes over giving a smack with a wooden spoon, regardless of what the child did, in order to set definitions and precedents.

Reasonable force is ok for stopping offensive behaviour (subsection 1c) but not for correcting the offensive behaviour. Where do you draw the line? What is it about wanting to correct bad behaviour into good that is so hated by Bradford? It is not clear if implements are allowed to be used in the purposes named in subsections 1a through 1d. I've writen to Bradford, Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission, Howard Broad of the Police Commission, Rajen Prasad of the Families Commission and several others about this, the definition of "correction" and other things back in April. Let's see what they say.

As far as I can make out, politically, Labour was damaged big time and continuing to take many hits. They were bleeding all over the place, and deathly pale. If Key had stood back, they would have died at the polls and the next election. Instead, Key gives Clark a blood transfusion, saves her and tosses a lifeline to the Greens at the same time. In doing so he has secured the total demise of the National Party, caused them to be seen as Labourites dressed in Blue.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

2 May 2007 - Family Integrity #238 -- Section 59 in Parliament

Dear all,

This will be debated later today and tonight in Parliament

www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/parliament

Parliament is sitting today from 2pm to 6pm and again from 7:30pm to 10pm. This link above is good during those times.

The understanding is that the final vote won't happen today but will most likely now take place in 2 weeks, 16 May, and become law a month after the Governor General gets round to signing it.

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

2 May 2007 - Family Integrity #237 -- Surrender by National

it is all over folks.

John Keys and Helen Clark have agreed to amend Bradford's Bill with the following:

To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

Bradford agrees with the amendment, because, as she just said on Michael Law's radio show, it doesn't change her bill in any way whatsoever.

Why is this true?

This amendment is simply adding this as an extra clause to the Bill. It is not changing the re-write of Section 59 which is another clause in the Bill. So, the clause will not pass into the Crimes Act. It is simply a bit of commentary in the Bill. And as Bradford just said on Law's radio show, this is precisely what Police do now anyway.

And of course, parents who use reasonable force to correct their children do not use inconsequential force.....they use force that is going to have consequences....the consequence of present and future corrected behaviour. Police will have to consider this a criminal act.

And of course, CYFS is most likely still to be advised by police, even when the force is inconsequential, for the force is technically illegal. Here is where our greatest fear lies.

This is total and complete capitulation by National. They've surrendered completely.

May God have mercy on us all.

Here then, unless there is some miraculous event in Parliament today, is what Section 59 will look like :


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).




Correcting your children, you see in (2), is a criminal offense. And (3) says that if there is a doubt as to whether the force was for correction or for prevention, the correction interpretation must prevail.

Until now, juries convict the accused of a crime when no doubt about it exists, when it is beyond reasonable doubt. Now, if charged with the crime of using force to correct your child, the existence of doubt will legally require the jury to convict you of the crime.

This Bill is totalitarian in the way it thoroughly removes parental authority to determine the upbringing of their children, for they are unable to use force, even reasonable force, to back up their parental requirements and prohibitions. If Police could not use any force to back up state prohibitions, they would be reduced to making suggestions which we could safely ignore. Children will be able to safely ignore what parents say.

This Bill signals the tipping of NZ into the cauldron of totalitarianism in that the politicians, across all parties, have totally ignored the clear will of the populace.

Ring John Key's office and tell National how stunned you are at their total surrender to Labour and the Greens.

John's Wellington office: (04) 471 9307
His Auckland office: (09) 412 2496


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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

2 May 2007 - Family Integrity #237 --More on TV 1 Survey. Please answer this survey this morning

Please fill this out ASAP for TV 1, results today, Wednesday.

http://tinyurl.com/3bjduw

Here are our answers to two of the questions:

A. I answered that what I smack for was for the 4 Ds - Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty, Destructiveness.

B. Then this is how we answered the last question:

Bradford has been shown to be a master of deceit, and this quote from her contains some classic lies about the situation in Europe. See Sweden's National Council for Crime Prevention website, in English, at http://www.bra.se. Anyone who promotes prostitution, lowered drinking age, lower penalties for dangerous drug taking and child porn, lobbies to raise the status of sodomites in every conceivable way and to preserve for females the option, for whatever reason, not to have the responsible male named on the birth certificate, while doing nothing to stop the pre-meditated killing of 17,000 unborn humans every year should be in therapy, not in Parliament.

Sue Bradford is lying to the New Zealand Public. There are many articles about the fact that the smacking ban does not work in these countries. See articles like:

1. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/swedens-smacking-ban-more-harm-than.html

2. 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.

3. http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sweden.pdf.

4.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.
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Ruby%20Harrold-Claesson

5. Ruby Harrold-Claesson says "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

6. 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

7. 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

8. and then the altimate of sues Bradford Lying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBKFKc2igU

or


Please make sure you listen to this Youtube movie.

To finish - Ruby again says "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

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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

2 May 2007 - Family Integrity #236 -- Take this TV 1 survey

Please fill this out ASAP for TV 1, results tonight, Wednesday.

Thanks,
You'll also go in the prize draw for $1,000

http://tinyurl.com/3bjduw


Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

27 April 2007 - Family Integrity #234

The following came from David Farrars blog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/) 26 April:
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.

The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.

This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.

It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.

We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.

The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.


This is interesting political sleight of hand. It is what Bradford has been doing all along.

Good on ya, Key! He wants to dump the parts of Bradford's Bill that will criminalise parents for correcting their children: subsections 59(2) and 59(3), which read: "(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)."

And he is going to replace them with the clause at the bottom that justifies "lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties" as long as the smack is "minor and inconsequential" and then he gives a nod to Section 3.

Now, Section 3 is in the version of Bradford's Bill that is currently before Parliament. It says, "3 Purpose. 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." So the Act says it is meant to abolish the use of parental force for correction. But if subsections 59(2) and 59(3) get removed and replaced by Key's amendment, there will be noting actually written in the statute books that abolishes the use of parental force for correction, even though there is something in the Act which says that's why it's there!!

And Key's amendment doesn't ban the use of implements as Borrow's amendment does. Please note also that Bradford's Bill as it is does not ban the use of implements either.

This amendment by Key, if adopted, will have the effect of more closely maintaining the status quo. Bradford's bill as it is has the effect of widening the use of parental force with children quite a bit more than the present Section 59 obviously allows. That is, Bradford's Bill appears to extend the justifiable use of force with children beyond what the original Section 59 does, except that it criminalises correction. Key's amendment will leave Bradford's extensions to the use of force in place and also remove the criminalising of correction.


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
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

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

26 April 2007 - Family Integrity #233 -- No smack compromise for Key and Bradford

No smack compromise for Key and Bradford
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007


http://www.stuff.co.nz/4038067a11.html
National Party leader John Key and the Green's Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking.

They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as "genuine and friendly" but did not find a way to overcome National's strong opposition to the bill.

The bill's future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates.

The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows "reasonable force" to be used to correct children.

Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence.

Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children.

Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.

It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different.

Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child.

Mr Key initiated today's meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill.

"I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something," she said.

Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial "but there was no outcome".
 

24 April 2007 - Family Integrity #232 - MASS GATHERING @ PARLIAMENT TO OPPOSE ANTI SMACKING BILL

Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds

Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm

www.familyvalues.net.nz

24 April 2007

'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'

Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, 'we do so under threat.' In response to Mr Keast's comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: "The law is the law.' Now lets take the anti smacking bill. If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, 'the law is the law!' Government's planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.


To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week - Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.


Event details can be viewed on www.familyvalues.net.nz


Media Enquiries:
Janine Cardno
Mobile: (027) 479-9191
Email: info@familyvalues.net.nz
 

23 April 2007 - Family Integrity #231 -- Smack down the middle

Greetings,

Well, the Show on TV last night:

Sunday Night 7.30pm
Smack down the Middle

DID NOT, in fact, deal with the famous "hosepipe" case the repeal lobby bring up time and again. It dealt with a totally unknown case that is unknown because it never made it to court but was tossed out by a couple of Taranaki JPs who decided it was not worth prosecuting.

Just to point out a few things: the father of the boy was all upset. Well, for crying out loud, who was it sent his own son away because he could no longer handle him? Did he not choose where the boy got sent? Did he not check out what kind of treatment the boy would get there?

The boy was asked if he'd ever smack his own future children. "No, unless they...." There you have it.

The father said, in spite of all this, he DID NOT support Bradford's Bill.

I must also add that the smack the uncle administered was controlled, not in anger, measured and explained to the boy and the boy apparently submitted to it.

In virtually ALL the discussions about smacking, parents are portrayed as lashing out in frustration, anger, having come to the end of their tether. The wee film clips of parents smacking children with their hands are all of this variety. THis is not controlled, useful, purposeful corporal correction. This is what most would call "light smacks" that they don't want to see banned. It is the measured strokes with a wooden spoon or cane that are, in fact, most judicial, helpful, purposeful, effective, are explained to the child, are submitted to by the child, but which are most likely to be banned because they have not entered into the debate.

Regards,

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

Our Home....Our Castle
 

22 April 2007 - Family Integrity #229 -- hosepipe case on TV 1 tonight

Sorry about late notice: I only just found out:

an extensive review of the "hosepipe" case of discipline the repeal lobby constantly bring up is on as part of the Sunday Documentary programme, 7:30 tonight on TV 1. I don't know what the over all spin to it will be, but it is one of the three the repeal lobby bring up all the time (the other two being the Timaru riding crop case and the Hawkes Bay "plank of wood" case, which is interesting because the "plank" was 2cm by 30cm, the size of a standard wooden spoon and the judge acquitted the parent as soon as he heard the facts without a Section 59 defense even being raised!!)

Regards

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

Our Home....Our Castle
 

21 April 2007 - Family Integrity #228 -- When God Gets Kicked Out

This wee (G rated) video clip pretty well explains why we're in the
state we're in.

http://www.afr.net/newafr/wekickedgodout.asp

Regards,

Craig & Barbara Smith
 

21 April 2007 - Family Integrity #227 -- Third Feilding Protest Rally

Diane Woodward is organising the third rally in Feilding to protest
against the passage of Bradford's Bill to re-write Section 59.

This one is to draw attention to the meeting between National's John Key
and Green's Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April.

Meet at the Feilding Clock Tower at 12 Noon Monday 23 April, two days
before ANZAC Day.

Regards,

Craig & Barbara Smith
 

20 April 2007 - Family Integrity #226 -- Questions for Key & Bradford

Greetings,

Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford 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.

To help us know what to do, I've pasted below the present Section 59 as well as the re-write of Section 59 that the present Parliament is considering as a replacement for the presnet Section 59.

Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered "One" through "Five". (Contact details for both below).

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 confused by too many undefined and unusual 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.

Ask the following of Key and Bradford"

Number One:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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).




Contact details for John Key:
Email John Key: john.key@national.org.nz
Email John Key's Parliamentary secretary, Emma Holmes: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Email John Key's electorate assistant, Mel macDonald: mel@johnkey.mp.net.nz
Phone (Parliament): 04-471-9307
Fax (Parliament): 04-473-3689
Phone (Helensville electorate): 09-412-2496
Surface Mail: John Key, Leader of the Opposition - Room 3.014 - Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Electorate office: 265 State Highway 16, Kumeu, Helensville, Auckland


Contact details for Sue Bradford:
Parliamentary Contacts:
Email: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: 04-470 6720
Fax: 04-472 6003
Freepost Parliament
PO Box 18,888, Wellington.

Green Party Office Contacts:
308 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland
P O Box 1553, Shortland Street, Auckland
socialjustice@greens.org.nz
ph. (09) 361 6202
Fax (09) 361 5926



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
 

18 April 2007 - Family Integrity #224 -- World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00208.htm
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
17 APRIL 2007
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ

Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.

Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark 'Anti-Smacking' Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow's (which substantially lowers the definition of what is 'reasonable' without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.

Dr Larzelere has been one of the world's foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years - including:

*One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code. (The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own country!)

*Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association.

*One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by American Academy of Pediatrics.

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
 

12 April 2007 - Family Integrity #222 -- Timaru Lady on YouTube

See and listen for yourself from the Timaru Lady - Riding Crop case

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/timaru-lady-speaks-out-herself.html


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
 

11 April 2007 - Family Integrity #220 -- Sweden's overall reported crime has increased dramatically

Here is a Brief Summary from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention website:

http://www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_show&id=14&module_instance=11

The number of reported crimes has increased for the majority of offence types during the period 1975-2004. Exceptions to this include amongst others fraud offences and burglaries, including residential break-ins. The trend over the past ten years reflects an increase in reported violent and sexual offences, whereas the number of reported theft offences is more or less the same as it was ten years ago.

The number of reported crimes against life and health, 1975-2004.
The largest proportion of reported violent crime is comprised of assault offences. A total of just under 67,100 such offences were reported in 2004. The number of reported assaults against both children and adults has increased since 1975, and today stands at three times the level reported at that time.


http://www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_show&id=33&module_instance=11

Criminality over time
Since 1950, overall reported criminality in Sweden has increased dramatically.
Various factors have contributed to this increase in the number of reported crimes in the post-war years. The primary explanation is the improvement in living conditions, which has resulted in greater access to goods that are prone to being stolen, in combination with reduced social control between people.

1950-1990
Up until 1964, there was a gentle increase in the total number of reported crimes. The period between 1965 and 1980 is characterised by a greater rate of increase and by major variations between different years. In 1970 just over 656,000 crimes were reported, while in 1980 the number of reported crimes reached around 928,000.
The period between 1980 and the beginning of the 1990s is characterised by an even greater rate of increase. On average, the number of reported crimes increased by 31,000 every year. Almost 1,219,000 crimes were reported in 1990.

1990 onwards
The number of reported crimes remained relatively constant during the 1990s, with slight increases and decreases in certain years. Over the past ten years, the number of violent crimes reported to the police (chapter 3 of Criminal Code) has increased by 35 percent (from 56,574 reported crimes in 1996 to 76,118 in 2005).

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
 

11 April 2007 - Family Integrity #219 -- Sweden's Battered Women

So much for non-violence in Sweden! Read this:

"http://www.rcne.com/downloads/RCCs/Sweden.doc">http://www.rcne.com/downloads/RCCs/Sweden.doc

BEDA

Support centre BEDA is a Non Governmental Organisation and a member of ROKS, The National Organisation for Battered Women Shelters in Sweden. The association is for women who have been subjected to incest or other forms of sexual abuse. The activity is based on self-help, woman to woman.

Beaten Lady
The first large investigation about men’s violence against women in Sweden was published in May 2001. The research was commissioned by the government and conducted by Eva Lundgren, professor of Sociology and by Gun Heimer, director of the National Women Centre in Uppsala.

Some facts in summery:
* Almost half of the women, 46%, have been exposed to violence by a man at some point after the age of 15.

* More than half the women, 56%, have been sexually harassed.

*Violence and/or sexual harassment are something nearly 7 of 10 Swedish women, 67% have experienced.

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
 




 

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