http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/4011119a6502.html
Second protest over bill
Manawatu Standard | Friday, 30 March 2007
Mother-of-four Dianne Woodward is fronting a second protest against the anti-smacking bill in Feilding within a week.
The protest will be at the Feilding clock tower at noon on Monday - seven days after 350 people protested the Sue Bradford bill at the same location.
Mrs Woodward, who has become the face of those against the bill in Manawatu, said she had received overwhelming support for her stand from various quarters in the community. She had been encouraged to keep the pressure on the Government so had agreed to stage another protest. If the bill is passed, parents who smack their children will not be able to use the excuse of reasonable force.
"I am so wound up by this, but I will be quite restrained and sensible (at the protest)," Mrs Woodward said.
"So many people have commended me for getting off my backside and standing there and speaking from the heart."
She did not care if parents smacked or not, but did care that the Government was telling her how to raise her children, she said.
The Government announcement that it will review the anti-smacking bill two years after it is passed is a "pathetic smokescreen".
Saturday, 31 March 2007
31 March 2007 - nzherald - John Armstrong: Clark whip spurs voter backlash
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10431744
John Armstrong: Clark whip spurs voter backlash
5:00AM Saturday March 31, 2007
As a general rule, prime ministers shouldn't mess with private members' bills. And normally they don't.
Private members' bills which deal with matters of morality are usually big trouble. Prime ministers usually have enough of that heaped on their plates without putting up their hands for more by taking sides on something provoking strong emotions.
To then take the step of wielding prime ministerial authority to direct how MPs should vote on what many people believe should be a conscience issue is to invite a public backlash.
Despite the already overwhelming opposition to the so-called anti-smacking bill initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford, Helen Clark ignored those unwritten rules. Labour is copping the backlash.
National's polling is apparently registering a voter exodus from Labour of astonishing proportions - so astonishing National is querying whether its figures are right.
Labour is confident that once the bill is passed, public fury will subside. The world did not end the day the ban on smoking in bars came into force. Likewise smacking.
But for now things are a mess. National is puzzled why Labour got itself embroiled in something with so little political upside.
It must be presumed Clark ignored the unwritten rules because of her personal conviction that smacking to correct a child's behaviour is wrong and should be outlawed.
It is a principled stance. It would have been more so had she allowed her MPs to exercise their principles through a conscience vote.
But that would likely have condemned Bradford's bill to defeat.
That has been Labour's quandary. Labour may have acted out of principle. It has contrasted Clark's "leadership" on the bill with John Key's "expedience". But saving the bill meant incurring damage. Labour has got caught in a vortex where its attempts to stem the damage have only made things worse for itself.
Leaving the bill to sink or swim on its own would have been the easy option, however.
Given National's lead over Labour in the polls is solidifying and with Key nipping at her heels in the preferred prime minister stakes, Clark must have been tempted to wipe her hands of the measure.
She didn't. In her view, the defence available under section 59 of the Crimes Act for those who beat their children had to be wiped from the statute books. That belief overrode Clark's usual caution and previous intention for Labour to steer clear of legislation which might be mislabelled as "social engineering".
There may also have been an element of defiance; a desire to show that while her minority Government may be constrained, it is not going to be browbeaten into paralysis.
However, Clark also weighed in behind Bradford's bill because the public mistakenly regard it as a Labour bill. Labour was taking all the blame. The Greens were not.
The bill plays beautifully to their constituency. But that has meant the measure never got the intensive political marketing necessary when pushing controversial legislation through Parliament.
A belated selling job has seen Clark and other Labour ministers assuring parents they have nothing to fear from the bill and it is really targeted at altering the behaviour of those who "thrash and beat" their children.
However, as a One News-Colmar Brunton poll vividly illustrated this week, the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe the bill will help curb child abuse.
What the bill might or might not achieve on that front is anyway irrelevant to them. Their fix on the bill is very clear and very simple. The bill would stop them smacking their children when they are being naughty.
That was the bill's original intent. That was modified by a compromise at the select committee stage. The current wording means a child could not be smacked for the purpose of "correction", but "reasonable force" could be used to protect a child from harm, preventing a child from harming others or engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
As the Prime Minister keeps saying, the bill does not outlaw smacking. But it does mean parents cannot smack their children simply to discipline them when they are being naughty. Smacking can no longer be used as a behaviour-modification tool.
Much of the public opposition to the bill flows from the feeling "Nanny State" is barging through the front door of the family home.
The bill's proponents can argue such a view is misguided. They can argue the state crept in under the floorboards long ago. They can argue good parents are never going to face prosecution for the occasional mild slap. But it is what people believe that matters in politics, not what politicians think they should believe.
For the great majority, the bill deals with a moral question - whether it is right or wrong to smack a child.
The expectation is that moral issues are conscience issues for Parliament and MPs would have a free vote. But that was dashed by Labour whipping its MPs into line.
Clark insists the Bradford bill falls outside the scope of conscience issues which, to use her description, are confined to legislation dealing with "sex, gambling and booze".
If the bill is about curbing child abuse, it logically follows the Labour caucus should take a collective position on a measure combating a social problem.
But the public does not see it that way. It sees a governing party losing the argument and then whipping its MPs to get the result it wants.
In applying the whip, Labour immediately lost any claim on the moral high ground.
Its subsequent frenzied attempts to get the bill off the political agenda have only compounded public indignation. It flirted with urgency when it had little chance of securing it.
It is now contemplating turning the private member's bill into a Government bill so it can be debated and passed next week.
The procedural sleights of hand are a measure of Labour's desperate desire to rid itself of the measure. But the bill's opponents see them as further examples of a cynical Government manipulating the system.
Even the sweetener offered by the Government - a Ministry of Social Development review of how the new law is working two years after it comes into force - will be treated with suspicion. There is no obligation on the Government to act on the review.
Ostensibly, Labour is waiting for Winston Peters to return from South America so NZ First has some input into discussions on whether the measure should become a Government bill.
Labour's other support partner, United Future, has already expressed strong reservations.
But Labour does not have much choice. The furore over Bradford's bill has already completely overshadowed Labour's highlighting of social measures which come into force on April 1. These include the $10 family tax credit, a boost in the minimum wage and four weeks' annual leave.
Labour cannot afford a repeat episode when Parliament resumes in May following the three-week recess in April. Why? Let's just say two words - the Budget.
John Armstrong: Clark whip spurs voter backlash
5:00AM Saturday March 31, 2007
As a general rule, prime ministers shouldn't mess with private members' bills. And normally they don't.
Private members' bills which deal with matters of morality are usually big trouble. Prime ministers usually have enough of that heaped on their plates without putting up their hands for more by taking sides on something provoking strong emotions.
To then take the step of wielding prime ministerial authority to direct how MPs should vote on what many people believe should be a conscience issue is to invite a public backlash.
Despite the already overwhelming opposition to the so-called anti-smacking bill initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford, Helen Clark ignored those unwritten rules. Labour is copping the backlash.
National's polling is apparently registering a voter exodus from Labour of astonishing proportions - so astonishing National is querying whether its figures are right.
Labour is confident that once the bill is passed, public fury will subside. The world did not end the day the ban on smoking in bars came into force. Likewise smacking.
But for now things are a mess. National is puzzled why Labour got itself embroiled in something with so little political upside.
It must be presumed Clark ignored the unwritten rules because of her personal conviction that smacking to correct a child's behaviour is wrong and should be outlawed.
It is a principled stance. It would have been more so had she allowed her MPs to exercise their principles through a conscience vote.
But that would likely have condemned Bradford's bill to defeat.
That has been Labour's quandary. Labour may have acted out of principle. It has contrasted Clark's "leadership" on the bill with John Key's "expedience". But saving the bill meant incurring damage. Labour has got caught in a vortex where its attempts to stem the damage have only made things worse for itself.
Leaving the bill to sink or swim on its own would have been the easy option, however.
Given National's lead over Labour in the polls is solidifying and with Key nipping at her heels in the preferred prime minister stakes, Clark must have been tempted to wipe her hands of the measure.
She didn't. In her view, the defence available under section 59 of the Crimes Act for those who beat their children had to be wiped from the statute books. That belief overrode Clark's usual caution and previous intention for Labour to steer clear of legislation which might be mislabelled as "social engineering".
There may also have been an element of defiance; a desire to show that while her minority Government may be constrained, it is not going to be browbeaten into paralysis.
However, Clark also weighed in behind Bradford's bill because the public mistakenly regard it as a Labour bill. Labour was taking all the blame. The Greens were not.
The bill plays beautifully to their constituency. But that has meant the measure never got the intensive political marketing necessary when pushing controversial legislation through Parliament.
A belated selling job has seen Clark and other Labour ministers assuring parents they have nothing to fear from the bill and it is really targeted at altering the behaviour of those who "thrash and beat" their children.
However, as a One News-Colmar Brunton poll vividly illustrated this week, the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe the bill will help curb child abuse.
What the bill might or might not achieve on that front is anyway irrelevant to them. Their fix on the bill is very clear and very simple. The bill would stop them smacking their children when they are being naughty.
That was the bill's original intent. That was modified by a compromise at the select committee stage. The current wording means a child could not be smacked for the purpose of "correction", but "reasonable force" could be used to protect a child from harm, preventing a child from harming others or engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
As the Prime Minister keeps saying, the bill does not outlaw smacking. But it does mean parents cannot smack their children simply to discipline them when they are being naughty. Smacking can no longer be used as a behaviour-modification tool.
Much of the public opposition to the bill flows from the feeling "Nanny State" is barging through the front door of the family home.
The bill's proponents can argue such a view is misguided. They can argue the state crept in under the floorboards long ago. They can argue good parents are never going to face prosecution for the occasional mild slap. But it is what people believe that matters in politics, not what politicians think they should believe.
For the great majority, the bill deals with a moral question - whether it is right or wrong to smack a child.
The expectation is that moral issues are conscience issues for Parliament and MPs would have a free vote. But that was dashed by Labour whipping its MPs into line.
Clark insists the Bradford bill falls outside the scope of conscience issues which, to use her description, are confined to legislation dealing with "sex, gambling and booze".
If the bill is about curbing child abuse, it logically follows the Labour caucus should take a collective position on a measure combating a social problem.
But the public does not see it that way. It sees a governing party losing the argument and then whipping its MPs to get the result it wants.
In applying the whip, Labour immediately lost any claim on the moral high ground.
Its subsequent frenzied attempts to get the bill off the political agenda have only compounded public indignation. It flirted with urgency when it had little chance of securing it.
It is now contemplating turning the private member's bill into a Government bill so it can be debated and passed next week.
The procedural sleights of hand are a measure of Labour's desperate desire to rid itself of the measure. But the bill's opponents see them as further examples of a cynical Government manipulating the system.
Even the sweetener offered by the Government - a Ministry of Social Development review of how the new law is working two years after it comes into force - will be treated with suspicion. There is no obligation on the Government to act on the review.
Ostensibly, Labour is waiting for Winston Peters to return from South America so NZ First has some input into discussions on whether the measure should become a Government bill.
Labour's other support partner, United Future, has already expressed strong reservations.
But Labour does not have much choice. The furore over Bradford's bill has already completely overshadowed Labour's highlighting of social measures which come into force on April 1. These include the $10 family tax credit, a boost in the minimum wage and four weeks' annual leave.
Labour cannot afford a repeat episode when Parliament resumes in May following the three-week recess in April. Why? Let's just say two words - the Budget.
31 March 2007 - Family Integrity #209 -- The Latest
What's the latest?
Labour thought out loud about putting Bradford's Bill under urgency and so ram it through before the Easter break that way. But all that did was stir up opposition to this Bill even more.
Labour is now thinking out loud that they might change Bradford's Private Member's Bill (which can only be considered on every second Wednesday) into a Government Bill, which can be considered at any time. They say they'll make a decision on that this Tuesday (3 April). Political commentators say this will work, and that it will enable the Bill to get pushed through by Thursday.
About 3 National MPs who said they were going to vote for the Bill have come out to say they are against it now. But the Bill will get 63 votes without any National votes: Labour, Greens, Maori, Progressive, Dunne (UF), Woolerton and Donnelly (NZF) make 63. Only 61 are needed to pass.
The Bill is giving Labour and Greens a golden opportunity to show how clever they are at telling lies and feeding out misinformation. They say it won't ban smacking, though Police have confirmed it clearly will. So Labour say that smacking has, in fact, been illegal all these years anyway, and that the Bill will only remove a legal defense. So they want us to believe that they are not making smacking illegal, just making it impossible for parents to legally defend themselves if they ever smack a child, however lightly.
They are also getting more and more emotive in how they equate the current Section 59's "reasonable force" with violence, severe beatings, thrashings, etc. Kiro was fond of saying Section 59 gives parents a license to beat their chidlren. None of this is true, of course, for any fool will tell you that "reasonable force" is not beating, thrashing, etc. To maintain that they are the same, as do Clark, Bradford and Kiro, is to say that juries are typically too thick to tell the difference.
This bill as proposed, reproduced below, doesn't get rid of the hated "reasonable force" that Bradford et al constantly say is a mask for severe beatings, thrashings, and other forms of violence. It in fact outlines scenarios wherein one can use "reasonable force" or, in their rhetoric, scenarios wherein one can legally thrash and severely beat one's child: to prevent harm, criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when a beating is incidental to good care and parenting. The one time you must never use reasonable force is for the purpose of correction.
In fact, subsection 3 of the bill says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1. That is, if there is a question over whether a parent's smack or use of reasonable force was corrective or preventative or incidental to good care and parenting, the corrective interpretation must prevail, meaning when there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be considered quilty of planning correction for the child and therefore must be convicted. Reasonable doubt normally acquits....with this Bill, reasonable doubt requires a conviction. Haven't Bradford and her colleagues on the Select Committee and Sir Geoffrey Palmer who drafted this Bill been clever to turn centuries of hard-won legal precedents on their head with a mere six words in subsection 3? Brilliant.
The passage of this Bill will tip New Zealand into the cauldron of those countries which are totalitarian socialist dictatorships; places like Sweden & Germany. Sweden is best known for kidnapping children into foster care and monster children who control and terrorise their parents; Germany is known for its absolute intolerance of home schoolers and Christians who would dare to be different from the society the state's public schools is creating, explaining that "parallel societies" cannot be allowed.
The Bill will give our children into the hands of the state. And once we give the bureaucrats the children, we might just as well give them everything else. For once we've made the Big Compromise and given over our children, they WILL come for everything else.
Continue to email and ring and fax and write to the MPs. Lobby to the last minute. See our home page for things to do: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.
Proposed replacement of section 59
59 Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in
the place of a parent of the child is justified in
using force if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child
or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in conduct that amounts
to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive
behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are
incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of
common law justifies the use of force for the
purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
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
Labour thought out loud about putting Bradford's Bill under urgency and so ram it through before the Easter break that way. But all that did was stir up opposition to this Bill even more.
Labour is now thinking out loud that they might change Bradford's Private Member's Bill (which can only be considered on every second Wednesday) into a Government Bill, which can be considered at any time. They say they'll make a decision on that this Tuesday (3 April). Political commentators say this will work, and that it will enable the Bill to get pushed through by Thursday.
About 3 National MPs who said they were going to vote for the Bill have come out to say they are against it now. But the Bill will get 63 votes without any National votes: Labour, Greens, Maori, Progressive, Dunne (UF), Woolerton and Donnelly (NZF) make 63. Only 61 are needed to pass.
The Bill is giving Labour and Greens a golden opportunity to show how clever they are at telling lies and feeding out misinformation. They say it won't ban smacking, though Police have confirmed it clearly will. So Labour say that smacking has, in fact, been illegal all these years anyway, and that the Bill will only remove a legal defense. So they want us to believe that they are not making smacking illegal, just making it impossible for parents to legally defend themselves if they ever smack a child, however lightly.
They are also getting more and more emotive in how they equate the current Section 59's "reasonable force" with violence, severe beatings, thrashings, etc. Kiro was fond of saying Section 59 gives parents a license to beat their chidlren. None of this is true, of course, for any fool will tell you that "reasonable force" is not beating, thrashing, etc. To maintain that they are the same, as do Clark, Bradford and Kiro, is to say that juries are typically too thick to tell the difference.
This bill as proposed, reproduced below, doesn't get rid of the hated "reasonable force" that Bradford et al constantly say is a mask for severe beatings, thrashings, and other forms of violence. It in fact outlines scenarios wherein one can use "reasonable force" or, in their rhetoric, scenarios wherein one can legally thrash and severely beat one's child: to prevent harm, criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when a beating is incidental to good care and parenting. The one time you must never use reasonable force is for the purpose of correction.
In fact, subsection 3 of the bill says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1. That is, if there is a question over whether a parent's smack or use of reasonable force was corrective or preventative or incidental to good care and parenting, the corrective interpretation must prevail, meaning when there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be considered quilty of planning correction for the child and therefore must be convicted. Reasonable doubt normally acquits....with this Bill, reasonable doubt requires a conviction. Haven't Bradford and her colleagues on the Select Committee and Sir Geoffrey Palmer who drafted this Bill been clever to turn centuries of hard-won legal precedents on their head with a mere six words in subsection 3? Brilliant.
The passage of this Bill will tip New Zealand into the cauldron of those countries which are totalitarian socialist dictatorships; places like Sweden & Germany. Sweden is best known for kidnapping children into foster care and monster children who control and terrorise their parents; Germany is known for its absolute intolerance of home schoolers and Christians who would dare to be different from the society the state's public schools is creating, explaining that "parallel societies" cannot be allowed.
The Bill will give our children into the hands of the state. And once we give the bureaucrats the children, we might just as well give them everything else. For once we've made the Big Compromise and given over our children, they WILL come for everything else.
Continue to email and ring and fax and write to the MPs. Lobby to the last minute. See our home page for things to do: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.
Proposed replacement of section 59
59 Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in
the place of a parent of the child is justified in
using force if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child
or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in conduct that amounts
to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or
continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive
behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are
incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of
common law justifies the use of force for the
purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
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
30 March 2007 - Manawatu Standard - Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4011184a10.html
Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
By GRANT MILLER - Manawatu Standard | Friday, 30 March 2007
Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
"CYFS seems to have so much power," said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.
She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.
Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove "reasonable force" for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.
Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.
She says she asked: "If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police - would you have to come out and investigate?"
The answer was yes.
Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.
Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.
She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that's when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.
"That's the bit that scared me - having CYFS on your doorstep," Mrs Elliott said.
"I've got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.
"A light smack for correction is not abuse," she added.
Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.
He said it would be "difficult to say, categorically" if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.
However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said reported assaults on children would "almost invariably" end up with CYFS.
"If a parent admits to smacking a child, that's clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported," he said.
Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be "basically mandatory".
Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.
Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.
"Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault," Mr O'Connor said.
"Police are not going to go around looking for it," he added.
Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.
"The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do."
Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
By GRANT MILLER - Manawatu Standard | Friday, 30 March 2007
Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
"CYFS seems to have so much power," said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.
She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.
Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove "reasonable force" for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.
Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.
She says she asked: "If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police - would you have to come out and investigate?"
The answer was yes.
Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.
Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.
She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that's when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.
"That's the bit that scared me - having CYFS on your doorstep," Mrs Elliott said.
"I've got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.
"A light smack for correction is not abuse," she added.
Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.
He said it would be "difficult to say, categorically" if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.
However, Police Association president Greg O'Connor said reported assaults on children would "almost invariably" end up with CYFS.
"If a parent admits to smacking a child, that's clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported," he said.
Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be "basically mandatory".
Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.
Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.
"Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault," Mr O'Connor said.
"Police are not going to go around looking for it," he added.
Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.
"The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do."
Thursday, 29 March 2007
28 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00360.htm
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 10:46 am
Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.
Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford's Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."
How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)
There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.
Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).
Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.
Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml
I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.
In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.
A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007
http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3
A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007
http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485
These are unprecedented happenings.
Here is a little more info. about the chaos that reigns among children and young people in Sweden: Yesterday, the newspapers published a news item about a school stabbing in Olofstorp, where I live and two of my children were pupils. According to Gothenburg Newspaper (Göteborgs Tidningen, GT) it started with a fight between two boys. One was kicked in his face! and another boy (16 yr old) intervened and stabbed the other 16 yr old in his leg. See http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.611855 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601. Please note that in 1988 Sweden enacted a law forbidding knives and other cutting weapons in public places, in schools etc.
The Swedish smacking ban did not create a peace-loving, non-fighting generation. Instead it has created societal problems with unruly and even dangerous children. The recently published UNICEF Innocenti report gives Sweden 15th place in family and peer relations. See http://www.unicef-icdc.org/presscentre/presskit/reportcard7/rc7_eng.pdf
If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.
Gothenburg, Sweden, March 28, 2007.
ENDS
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 10:46 am
Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.
Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford's Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."
How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)
There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.
Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).
Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.
Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml
I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.
In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.
A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007
http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3
A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007
http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485
These are unprecedented happenings.
Here is a little more info. about the chaos that reigns among children and young people in Sweden: Yesterday, the newspapers published a news item about a school stabbing in Olofstorp, where I live and two of my children were pupils. According to Gothenburg Newspaper (Göteborgs Tidningen, GT) it started with a fight between two boys. One was kicked in his face! and another boy (16 yr old) intervened and stabbed the other 16 yr old in his leg. See http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.611855 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601. Please note that in 1988 Sweden enacted a law forbidding knives and other cutting weapons in public places, in schools etc.
The Swedish smacking ban did not create a peace-loving, non-fighting generation. Instead it has created societal problems with unruly and even dangerous children. The recently published UNICEF Innocenti report gives Sweden 15th place in family and peer relations. See http://www.unicef-icdc.org/presscentre/presskit/reportcard7/rc7_eng.pdf
If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.
Gothenburg, Sweden, March 28, 2007.
ENDS
Coming Events
Watch this space for Future Marches in:
Dunedin
Rotorua
New Plymonth
Palmerston North
Wellington
Auckland
Dunedin
Rotorua
New Plymonth
Palmerston North
Wellington
Auckland
29 March 2007 - Family Integrity #208 -- Speeches at Parliament today
Greetings all,
Three things:
1. The Government dropped its bid to ram the Bill through Parliament under Urgency. This is old news now, being about 2 days stale.
2. The Government has apparently changed this anti-smacking, anti-parental authority Bill from a Private Member's Bill (which can only be debated every second week) into a Government Bill (which can be debated every day.
3.There have been very successful marches at Masterton, Nelson and Feilding over the last few days and one each in Christchurch and Wellington today, Wednesday 28 March. At this link you'll find videos of the speeches made at the Wellington march.
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/YouTube
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
Three things:
1. The Government dropped its bid to ram the Bill through Parliament under Urgency. This is old news now, being about 2 days stale.
2. The Government has apparently changed this anti-smacking, anti-parental authority Bill from a Private Member's Bill (which can only be debated every second week) into a Government Bill (which can be debated every day.
3.There have been very successful marches at Masterton, Nelson and Feilding over the last few days and one each in Christchurch and Wellington today, Wednesday 28 March. At this link you'll find videos of the speeches made at the Wellington march.
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/YouTube
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
29 March 2007 - email from Larry Baldock
Hi everyone,
What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.
The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!
If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.
The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.
What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbviZdqN5zs&mode=related&search=
After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.
More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!
Warm regards
Larry Baldock
What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.
The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!
If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.
The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.
What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbviZdqN5zs&mode=related&search=
After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.
More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!
Warm regards
Larry Baldock
28 March 2007 - The Wellington March against Bradford's Bill - as it was...
The Wellington March against Bradford's Bill - as it was...
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
28 March 2007 - Wellington Parliament - All the speeches from the Wellington anti-Bradford Bill March
All the speeches from the Wellington anti-Bradford Bill march.
1. 8:28 mins
2. 8:45 Mins
3. 4:53
1. 8:28 mins
2. 8:45 Mins
3. 4:53
Debate in Parliament just begun
Discussion has just begun
Today is a Member's Day, and Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is back for another round. There's Question Time, a general debate, and a local bill to get through first, so the committee stage probably won't kick off until 17:15 or so. When it does, you can listen to it online here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/parliament
Info from:http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/03/back-for-another-round.html
Today is a Member's Day, and Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is back for another round. There's Question Time, a general debate, and a local bill to get through first, so the committee stage probably won't kick off until 17:15 or so. When it does, you can listen to it online here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/parliament
Info from:http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/03/back-for-another-round.html
Results of Stuff Poll 27 March 2007
Do you think there should be a referendum on the 'anti-smacking' bill?
Yes (3864 votes, 78.5%)
No (1058 votes, 21.5%)
Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate
Yes (3864 votes, 78.5%)
No (1058 votes, 21.5%)
Stuff polls are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate
27 March - NZ Herald - Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966
Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law
5:00AM Tuesday March 27, 2007
One of the great ironies of the anti-smacking debate is Sue Bradford's touching faith in the police and the justice system - and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions.
I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of pre-schoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children.
But whether I choose to smack or not to smack - or whether anyone does - isn't the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil.
I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people.
The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community - and their children.
I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.
I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.
I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.
I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging teenage daughter after she damaged her bedroom.The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty.
I saw the realisation dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen "as a father's right", so they could not say it was reasonable discipline.
I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: "Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable."
Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.
In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn't used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.
Sue Bradford doesn't trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.
She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.
She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won't. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.
The police may not, and I'm sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate - and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.
Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. "Investigate" sounds benign. It is not.
That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It's not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.
All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.
This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford's concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.
Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.
Some are not. Some get caught up in a "means to an end" approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation - and the discretion it gives them - for the wrong purpose.
It won't be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.
The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don't give the police this much discretion. He's right, and we should listen to him.
* Michele Wilkinson-Smith is a lawyer
Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford's own people will lose most in smacking law
5:00AM Tuesday March 27, 2007
One of the great ironies of the anti-smacking debate is Sue Bradford's touching faith in the police and the justice system - and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions.
I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of pre-schoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children.
But whether I choose to smack or not to smack - or whether anyone does - isn't the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil.
I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people.
The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community - and their children.
I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that - unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.
I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.
I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.
I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging teenage daughter after she damaged her bedroom.The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty.
I saw the realisation dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen "as a father's right", so they could not say it was reasonable discipline.
I've had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I've never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: "Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable."
Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.
In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn't used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.
Sue Bradford doesn't trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.
She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.
She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won't. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.
The police may not, and I'm sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate - and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.
Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. "Investigate" sounds benign. It is not.
That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It's not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.
All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.
This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford's concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.
Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.
Some are not. Some get caught up in a "means to an end" approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation - and the discretion it gives them - for the wrong purpose.
It won't be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.
The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don't give the police this much discretion. He's right, and we should listen to him.
* Michele Wilkinson-Smith is a lawyer
27 March - The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200703271946/government_may_pick_up_bradfords_bill,_predicts_national
Government may pick up Bradford's bill, predicts National
Posted at 7:46pm on 27 Mar 2007
The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.
If that happens, the legislation could be passed before the Easter recess.
The government abandoned its bid to pass the bill under urgency this week, saying it believes it would have had the numbers but the bill was causing ructions within other parties.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen refused to comment when asked if the government might pick up Ms Bradford's bill.
This would result in its being debated on usual sitting days, rather than the fortnightly members' day, and its passing as early as next week.
National says it would be a cunning way of getting legislation off the agenda by passing it more quickly.
Bradford unfazed by delay
However, Green MP Sue Bradford says she is relaxed about the failure of the bill to pass this week.
Ms Bradford says that as long as the parliamentary support she has obtained for the bill stays solid she is happy to wait.
The bill passed a second reading by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.
May date
Because Parliament is in recess for much of April, the final vote will not take place until May. Opponents say will give them valuable time to lobby MPs.
National MP Chester Borrows says the government's decision not to debate the anti-smacking legislation under urgency is a victory for his party. He says National's position is vindicated by polling that suggests 83% of New Zealanders oppose the bill.
Government may pick up Bradford's bill, predicts National
Posted at 7:46pm on 27 Mar 2007
The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford's child discipline bill picked up by the government.
If that happens, the legislation could be passed before the Easter recess.
The government abandoned its bid to pass the bill under urgency this week, saying it believes it would have had the numbers but the bill was causing ructions within other parties.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen refused to comment when asked if the government might pick up Ms Bradford's bill.
This would result in its being debated on usual sitting days, rather than the fortnightly members' day, and its passing as early as next week.
National says it would be a cunning way of getting legislation off the agenda by passing it more quickly.
Bradford unfazed by delay
However, Green MP Sue Bradford says she is relaxed about the failure of the bill to pass this week.
Ms Bradford says that as long as the parliamentary support she has obtained for the bill stays solid she is happy to wait.
The bill passed a second reading by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.
May date
Because Parliament is in recess for much of April, the final vote will not take place until May. Opponents say will give them valuable time to lobby MPs.
National MP Chester Borrows says the government's decision not to debate the anti-smacking legislation under urgency is a victory for his party. He says National's position is vindicated by polling that suggests 83% of New Zealanders oppose the bill.
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
27 March 2007 - NZPA - Smacking row heats up
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4007571a11.html
Smacking row heats up
By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Tuesday, 27 March 2007
Government ministers have clashed with opposition MPs in Parliament over Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking ahead of another debate on it tomorrow.
Although the bill might not go to a final vote before mid-year, campaigns against it peak tomorrow with a march on Parliament and another day of full page protest advertisements in newspapers.
Prime Minister Helen Clark, facing a barrage of questions in Parliament, voiced her strongest support so far for the bill.
"It is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking," she said as opposition MPs insisted it did exactly that.
"I believe if this bill passes the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops, bits of wood and the rest of it."
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of justifiable "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Supporters, including Miss Clark, say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and cannot be banned because it already is.
Opponents say removing the "reasonable force" clause from the Crimes Act will turn parents in criminals if they even lightly smack their children.
National MPs accused Miss Clark of forcing her members to support the bill, and said she should have allowed them to exercise conscience votes free from party instructions.
"What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury through violence in the home," Miss Clark replied.
ACT MP Heather Roy said the Government was overriding the view of a majority of New Zealanders and had no right to tell her, a mother of five, how to raise her children.
Education Minister Steve Maharey said the bill did not ban smacking and did not tell parents anything.
"It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children," he said.
The bill is in the middle of its committee stage, the only stage at which it can be amended.
National MP Chester Borrows want to change it and insert a section which would allow light smacking. His amendment is likely to be voted on tomorrow.
Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes to defeat the amendment. A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.
She believes support will hold at about that level through the committee stage and the final third reading.
National MPs have managed to delay progress on the bill, and are expected to run more time-wasting tactics tomorrow.
Now that the Government has given up trying to put it on the fast track, it might have to wait until June before it comes up for the third reading vote that will determine whether it becomes law.
Member's bills can only be debated every second Wednesday when Parliament is sitting, and the three-week Easter recess is coming up.
Smacking row heats up
By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Tuesday, 27 March 2007
Government ministers have clashed with opposition MPs in Parliament over Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking ahead of another debate on it tomorrow.
Although the bill might not go to a final vote before mid-year, campaigns against it peak tomorrow with a march on Parliament and another day of full page protest advertisements in newspapers.
Prime Minister Helen Clark, facing a barrage of questions in Parliament, voiced her strongest support so far for the bill.
"It is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking," she said as opposition MPs insisted it did exactly that.
"I believe if this bill passes the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops, bits of wood and the rest of it."
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of justifiable "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Supporters, including Miss Clark, say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and cannot be banned because it already is.
Opponents say removing the "reasonable force" clause from the Crimes Act will turn parents in criminals if they even lightly smack their children.
National MPs accused Miss Clark of forcing her members to support the bill, and said she should have allowed them to exercise conscience votes free from party instructions.
"What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury through violence in the home," Miss Clark replied.
ACT MP Heather Roy said the Government was overriding the view of a majority of New Zealanders and had no right to tell her, a mother of five, how to raise her children.
Education Minister Steve Maharey said the bill did not ban smacking and did not tell parents anything.
"It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children," he said.
The bill is in the middle of its committee stage, the only stage at which it can be amended.
National MP Chester Borrows want to change it and insert a section which would allow light smacking. His amendment is likely to be voted on tomorrow.
Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes to defeat the amendment. A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.
She believes support will hold at about that level through the committee stage and the final third reading.
National MPs have managed to delay progress on the bill, and are expected to run more time-wasting tactics tomorrow.
Now that the Government has given up trying to put it on the fast track, it might have to wait until June before it comes up for the third reading vote that will determine whether it becomes law.
Member's bills can only be debated every second Wednesday when Parliament is sitting, and the three-week Easter recess is coming up.
27 March 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
For immediate release
Dear Editor,
I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you my reaction to the article "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime" that was printed in the Scoop on March 26, 2007.
Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org
*************
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful (sic!) stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.
Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford’s Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."
How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)
There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.
Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).
Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.
Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml">http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml
I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.
In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.
A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007
http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3
A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007
http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485
These are unprecedented happenings.
If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.
Gothenburg, Sweden, March 27, 2007.
Dear Editor,
I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you my reaction to the article "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime" that was printed in the Scoop on March 26, 2007.
Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org
*************
Bradford's Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, "Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime". She continues: "Wilful (sic!) stupidity is really hard to deal with". I agree with her 100 per cent.
Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else's own words that she "has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford’s Bill stands out for its utter idiocy."
How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that "child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect" lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)
There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject "Upbringing and punishment". The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.
Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).
Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son's execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.
Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. "Repeal Section 59 and cut crime", she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article "Targeting parents". I recommend careful reading of the article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml">http://web.archive.org/web/20020402053319/http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20001213.shtml
I also recommend reading of the Newman weekly "The Smacking Bill A Con job" http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
In all human societies parents have - during the history of our different civilisations - smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.
In Sweden schools are being shut down because of violence and threats among the students. The first one was in Malmö in April 2006. http://mobil.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=577543&lid=puff_577985&lpos=extra_0.
A second school, this time in Gothenburg was closed in February 2007
http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=757430&lid=puff_757367&lpos=extra_3
A third school, also in Gothenburg, was closed on March 21, 2007
http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1267485
These are unprecedented happenings.
If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden - not strive to make similar mistakes.
Gothenburg, Sweden, March 27, 2007.
26 March 2007 - TVNZ - Vast number against smacking bill
26 March 2007 - TVNZ - Vast number against smacking bill
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1037215
Vast number against smacking bill
Related Video
(Go into link above to watch these video links)
New blow for smacking bill (2:18)
Fury over smacking bill fast-track (2:12)
PM questioned on smacking (3:47)
Smacking debate remains divided (5:20)
Parents may defy smacking ban (1:13)
Sharples on smacking debate (5:41)
Labour loses ground despite plaudits (3:32)
Related Articles
(Go into link above to listen to audio links)
Anti-smacking fight heats up
Fury over smacking bill fast-track
Move to fast-track smacking bill
Former cop wades into smacking debate
Kiro told to keep nose out of politics
Smacking debate remains divided
One News Colmar Brunton poll: March 2007
Poll
(Go into link above to vote in this poll)
Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?
Mar 26, 2007
Anti-smacking campaigners have been dealt a fresh blow, with a new poll showing an overwhelming number of New Zealanders support parents' right to smack their naughty children.
The news comes as MPs prepare to once again debate the controversial bill banning smacking, and those against it are promising to keep turning up the heat.
A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children.
Just 15% disagreed with that, but supporters of Sue Bradford's bill say it is not aimed at those who lightly smack their child.
"The point of the Bradford bill is to enable the police to successfully prosecute serious child beaters," Prime Minister Helen Clark says.
It is already illegal to hit children but if prosecuted you have a legal defence that you were simply using reasonable force to correct their behaviour. The bill removes that defence because Bradford and others believe it was being wrongly used to get people off the hook for hitting their children with a riding crop or wooden sticks.
But there does not seem to be much faith that the bill will actually help those children. Just 18% say it will cut child abuse rates while 78% say it will do nothing.
With the bill to be debated again on Wednesday, the pressure is being racheted up.
A new advertising campaign against it kicks off on Tuesday. Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power are placing a full page newspaper advertisement to encourage people to sign a petition against the bill.
So far the petition has received more than 50,000 signatures. The aim is to hit 300,000 so the government is forced to hold a referendum.
More protests are also planned and one party is even threatening its own MPs with the boot next election if they do not vote against the controversial law.
Results supported
The Colmar poll results are backed by a Research New Zealand survey, which showed that of the 497 people polled 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the anti-smacking bill.
The poll also showed that 72% of New Zealanders thought that if the bill were to be passed into law, it would be unenforceable.
The poll also found those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the legislation, with a quarter strongly supporting the bill.
Fourteen other polls conducted by various organisations show on average about 80% of people oppose the legislation.
A text message poll run by Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.
"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past two years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
"Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 83% of Kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the anti-smacking bill.
"The message is clear to our politicians," says McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research - namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1037215
Vast number against smacking bill
Related Video
(Go into link above to watch these video links)
New blow for smacking bill (2:18)
Fury over smacking bill fast-track (2:12)
PM questioned on smacking (3:47)
Smacking debate remains divided (5:20)
Parents may defy smacking ban (1:13)
Sharples on smacking debate (5:41)
Labour loses ground despite plaudits (3:32)
Related Articles
(Go into link above to listen to audio links)
Anti-smacking fight heats up
Fury over smacking bill fast-track
Move to fast-track smacking bill
Former cop wades into smacking debate
Kiro told to keep nose out of politics
Smacking debate remains divided
One News Colmar Brunton poll: March 2007
Poll
(Go into link above to vote in this poll)
Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?
Mar 26, 2007
Anti-smacking campaigners have been dealt a fresh blow, with a new poll showing an overwhelming number of New Zealanders support parents' right to smack their naughty children.
The news comes as MPs prepare to once again debate the controversial bill banning smacking, and those against it are promising to keep turning up the heat.
A ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has found 83% of those surveyed believe it is okay to smack naughty children.
Just 15% disagreed with that, but supporters of Sue Bradford's bill say it is not aimed at those who lightly smack their child.
"The point of the Bradford bill is to enable the police to successfully prosecute serious child beaters," Prime Minister Helen Clark says.
It is already illegal to hit children but if prosecuted you have a legal defence that you were simply using reasonable force to correct their behaviour. The bill removes that defence because Bradford and others believe it was being wrongly used to get people off the hook for hitting their children with a riding crop or wooden sticks.
But there does not seem to be much faith that the bill will actually help those children. Just 18% say it will cut child abuse rates while 78% say it will do nothing.
With the bill to be debated again on Wednesday, the pressure is being racheted up.
A new advertising campaign against it kicks off on Tuesday. Family First, For the Sake of our Children, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Grey Power are placing a full page newspaper advertisement to encourage people to sign a petition against the bill.
So far the petition has received more than 50,000 signatures. The aim is to hit 300,000 so the government is forced to hold a referendum.
More protests are also planned and one party is even threatening its own MPs with the boot next election if they do not vote against the controversial law.
Results supported
The Colmar poll results are backed by a Research New Zealand survey, which showed that of the 497 people polled 73% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the anti-smacking bill.
The poll also showed that 72% of New Zealanders thought that if the bill were to be passed into law, it would be unenforceable.
The poll also found those aged 15 to 29 were more inclined to support the legislation, with a quarter strongly supporting the bill.
Fourteen other polls conducted by various organisations show on average about 80% of people oppose the legislation.
A text message poll run by Bay of Plenty Times over the weekend found a staggering 94.6% opposing the legislation.
"Supporters of the bill have always tried to argue that the 14 polls done over the past two years, and averaging 84% support for section 59, are not accurate," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
"Yet here is yet another independent poll showing that 83% of Kiwis either strongly disagree or disagree with the bill, or have no clear support for the anti-smacking bill.
"The message is clear to our politicians," says McCoskrie. "Reject the bill, don't criminalise our good parents, come back to the drawing board, and let's tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by UNICEF reports, CYF reports and national and international research - namely family breakdown and dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty and stress."
Monday, 26 March 2007
26 March 2007 -- News Talk ZB - Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114697
Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped
26/03/2007 19:28:02
The government has confirmed that it will no longer seek urgency on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
Labour had been seeking support for the final stages of the private member's bill to be considered under urgency on Wednesday.
But a spokesman for the office of Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen says that will no longer happen.
Amendments to Sue Bradford's bill will still be debated by Parliament on Wednesday.
Urgency on anti-smacking bill dumped
26/03/2007 19:28:02
The government has confirmed that it will no longer seek urgency on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
Labour had been seeking support for the final stages of the private member's bill to be considered under urgency on Wednesday.
But a spokesman for the office of Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen says that will no longer happen.
Amendments to Sue Bradford's bill will still be debated by Parliament on Wednesday.
26 March 2007 - Bay of Plenty Times - Smacking law gets thumbs down in Bay
http://www..co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3727409&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection
Smacking law gets thumbs down in Bay
26.03.2007
By CARLY UDY
Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill has received an overwhelming thumbs down from Western Bay residents.
A special Bay of Plenty Times text message poll on Saturday asked readers Do you think smacking should be outlawed? A staggering 94.6 per cent of the 354 respondents said "no", with only 5.4 per cent saying "yes".
The Government will this week decide whether they will attempt to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.
If they do so Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill could be passed into law by the end of the week.
The bill would remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children but opponents say it will outlaw smacking.
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament this Wednesday.
Ms Bradford said the Government had sought the Green Party's support for an urgency motion, which requires a majority.
But the Government would still need others to back the move before it could take urgency to pass the bill through its remaining stages.
To do that it would need the Maori Party, which supports Ms Bradford's bill, along with the six Green MPs, plus at least one other _ one of the two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill _ to get the 61 votes it needs to bring the matter before Parliament under urgency this week.
NZ First and the Maori party both said their parties would discuss the issue at their caucus meetings tomorrow. National MP for Tauranga Bob Clarkson said the anti-smacking bill was an ``extreme case of bad law'' and Prime Minister Helen Clark would achieve little in agreeing to have the bill fast tracked.
"Helen's got herself in a corner and she can't back out now or she'll upset the Greens," he said.
Mr Clarkson said by fast tracking the bill before Easter, Helen Clark perceived the issue would have cooled down after Parliament's three-week break.
"You can't take the control away from the parents, it's just ridiculous. Parents should have the right to control their children in a fair way and not beat them, of course," he said.
Mr Clarkson said 96 per cent of parents in New Zealand wanted the right to control their children.
"Sue Bradford talks about stopping parents beating their children, that is rubbish. The bill stops them touching their children and that is just silly. This is an extreme case of bad law."
Tony Ryall, National MP for the Bay of Plenty, said the Bay of Plenty Times poll reflected the feedback he was getting from the community. "Parents are angry that sticky beak Government is telling them how to run their families. Parents know the difference between a smack and a smash."
Mr Ryall said the bill would not stop one child from being beaten and it is was only being fast tracked because Miss Clark didn't want New Zealanders to know "how out of touch" she was.
Sue Bradford drafted legislation early last year seeking to repeal the law that allows parents to use reasonable force to punish their children.
She described the current law as "barbaric".
Smacking law gets thumbs down in Bay
26.03.2007
By CARLY UDY
Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial anti-smacking bill has received an overwhelming thumbs down from Western Bay residents.
A special Bay of Plenty Times text message poll on Saturday asked readers Do you think smacking should be outlawed? A staggering 94.6 per cent of the 354 respondents said "no", with only 5.4 per cent saying "yes".
The Government will this week decide whether they will attempt to fast-track legislation that would restrict parents' right to smack their children.
If they do so Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial bill could be passed into law by the end of the week.
The bill would remove the legal defence of "reasonable force" for parents who physically punish their children but opponents say it will outlaw smacking.
Opponents of the bill will march on Parliament this Wednesday.
Ms Bradford said the Government had sought the Green Party's support for an urgency motion, which requires a majority.
But the Government would still need others to back the move before it could take urgency to pass the bill through its remaining stages.
To do that it would need the Maori Party, which supports Ms Bradford's bill, along with the six Green MPs, plus at least one other _ one of the two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill _ to get the 61 votes it needs to bring the matter before Parliament under urgency this week.
NZ First and the Maori party both said their parties would discuss the issue at their caucus meetings tomorrow. National MP for Tauranga Bob Clarkson said the anti-smacking bill was an ``extreme case of bad law'' and Prime Minister Helen Clark would achieve little in agreeing to have the bill fast tracked.
"Helen's got herself in a corner and she can't back out now or she'll upset the Greens," he said.
Mr Clarkson said by fast tracking the bill before Easter, Helen Clark perceived the issue would have cooled down after Parliament's three-week break.
"You can't take the control away from the parents, it's just ridiculous. Parents should have the right to control their children in a fair way and not beat them, of course," he said.
Mr Clarkson said 96 per cent of parents in New Zealand wanted the right to control their children.
"Sue Bradford talks about stopping parents beating their children, that is rubbish. The bill stops them touching their children and that is just silly. This is an extreme case of bad law."
Tony Ryall, National MP for the Bay of Plenty, said the Bay of Plenty Times poll reflected the feedback he was getting from the community. "Parents are angry that sticky beak Government is telling them how to run their families. Parents know the difference between a smack and a smash."
Mr Ryall said the bill would not stop one child from being beaten and it is was only being fast tracked because Miss Clark didn't want New Zealanders to know "how out of touch" she was.
Sue Bradford drafted legislation early last year seeking to repeal the law that allows parents to use reasonable force to punish their children.
She described the current law as "barbaric".
March 2007 - www.kiwiblog.co.nz - Kerre Woodham on Smacking Ban Law
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/03/kerre_woodham_on_smacking_ban.html
Kerre Woodham on Smacking Ban Law
Some common sense from Kerre today:
... the frustration is that most of us know, too, that this flabby and ultimately unworkable bill will not make a blind bit of difference in changing the attitude of those people who beat their babies until their kids are dead.
I can't for the life of me understand why the Government is now trying to get the thing through Parliament under urgency. Bad enough that the Labour MPs have been whipped into line, and what is a conscience vote for other parties is a party vote for Labour.
And this same sort of overweaning arrogance may well see Labour paying at the ballot box. The Government might well believe that it has a higher authority in introducing this legislation, but to do so without engaging in consultation and education is just buying a fight. You cannot solve the problem of child abuse with one wave of a legislative fairy wand. And you're not going to stop parents smacking in moments of parental panic or frustration.
Tags:Kerre Woodham Section 59
Kerre Woodham on Smacking Ban Law
Some common sense from Kerre today:
... the frustration is that most of us know, too, that this flabby and ultimately unworkable bill will not make a blind bit of difference in changing the attitude of those people who beat their babies until their kids are dead.
I can't for the life of me understand why the Government is now trying to get the thing through Parliament under urgency. Bad enough that the Labour MPs have been whipped into line, and what is a conscience vote for other parties is a party vote for Labour.
And this same sort of overweaning arrogance may well see Labour paying at the ballot box. The Government might well believe that it has a higher authority in introducing this legislation, but to do so without engaging in consultation and education is just buying a fight. You cannot solve the problem of child abuse with one wave of a legislative fairy wand. And you're not going to stop parents smacking in moments of parental panic or frustration.
Tags:Kerre Woodham Section 59
26 March 2007 - thisischristchurch.blogspot - Is Christian pacifism biblical?
http://thisischristchurch.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-christian-pacifism-biblical.html
Monday, March 26, 2007
Is Christian pacifism biblical?
The subject of Christian pacifism is worthy of examination in light of the current NZ Parliamentary debate on Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use corrective force on their children. Much of the opposition comes from groups who advocate complete non-violence in society, including various pacifist movements.
Let's take a current events issue such as the war in Iraq and examine where the support and the opposition comes from. On the supporting side are, yes, Christian people, in the US and other countries, and people of largely a right-wing political perspective. On the opposing side are a whole range of views, many of them tied up in socialism, and also Christians who oppose all force - hence these are called Christian Pacifists. In fact, one of the hostage crises in Iraq involved the "Christian Peacemaker Teams" with Quaker associations, and the latter have long been known in the church for a strongly pacifist view.
The main theological line of reasoning for Christian Pacifism starts with Jesus' unction to "love your enemies" found in Matthew 5:43-44. From this we are supposed to accept that this means we should not engage in any use of force against people we don't like or any such thing. But in fact, loving our enemies does not imply that we have to accept what they do or become a doormat to be trampled over by them. This central tenet of Christian pacifism implies that there should be no laws or justice system. Well, if there were no laws, there would be a huge crime problem and society would suffer for it. Because of that being the case, we do have a legal/justice system and it involves the use of corrective force. In John 2:15, we read that Jesus took a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple. Quite clearly, Jesus believed that force was justified in certain contexts. And of course, Jesus was executed and it was God's will that he be executed. God had no qualms about the use of physical force against His own Son.
A Christian pacifist might argue that if we saw evil in the world, we should just let it go past and not do anything about it. After all, if force was involved, that would be the greater evil. This all falls down when we consider the situation of World War II. Hitler was eventually crushed by the armies of the Allied powers, but not before he had managed to snuff out the lives of six million Jews and at least another six million Europeans. The war against Hitler's tyranny wasn't won by pacifism, it was won by military might and many Christians went out and fought on that basis.
Most Christian pacifists want to deny the Old Testament when God sent His own warriors of Israel into battle to crush the evil in Canaan and other lands around Jerusalem. It's a fact that God uses force against evil, including the hands of His own servants. However, this tends to get glossed over by Christian pacifists. In the New Testament, of course, we have the Book of Revelation making again references to the military power of God and His armies coming out to crush the evil.
A way way way back in this blog, perhaps at the very beginning, I posted an article about good vs evil dualism. I guess the average biblopacifist would object to certain countries being judged as evil and others as good. They would argue that this unfairly stigmatises various countries. The fact remains, however, that if we want to defend our way of life, the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, then we must recognise the evil in our midst. Biblopacifists will still say that the US got what was coming to it. The US somehow deserved to get hit by Al-Qaeda. Of course, this exactly the kind of judgement being made that we are not supposed to make of certain countries as the pacifists would have it. Saddam Hussein got a bad rap, didn't he. It is all quite contradictory.
The biggest political problem for biblopacifism is that, like other forms of pacifism, its adherents tend to have an overwhelmingly left-wing political perspective; this really puts biblopacifism as an adaption of existing pacifist beliefs into a Christian perspective, rather than the other way around. Pacifism is strongly rooted in humanism and other anti-Christian (including religious) perspectives on life, so it is not a belief that is naturally suited to Christianity. This type of belief was extremely prevalent and at its peak in the early years of the 19th century - and then along came World War 1 and the idea that humanism and rationalism were going to produce a better world quickly died a sudden and deserved death. Pacifism dropped around that time, and in the Second World War in NZ, military conscription was supported by certain former pacifists in the Labour Government of the era.
The next biggest problem for biblopacifism is its strong association with liberal churches, that deny the authenticity of large chunks of the Bible. Obviously, this is necessary, in order to chop out those bits that contradict what Jesus supposedly commanded or expected all Christians to behave like. Why stop there, of course? Soon, every word that Jesus said can have a different meaning and be reinterpreted to mean something else, or nothing at all. Once that rot has started, it's very difficult to stop it.
The biggest problem in society is that many types of evil are only checked by the use of corrective force. For many evangelical Christians, their faith requires them to act, if necessary physically, against the evil in society. This is called being a "doer of the Word" rather than just someone who listens but does nothing. I believe that is the correct view to take in the Church. To do nothing means to allow evil to triumph. That is not what Christians should endorse in the world. We must oppose all attempts to water down or do away with corrective force and a justice system in society. Christian pacifism is really anathema to us Evangelicals; biblopacificists have replaced the spiritual power of the Christian gospel with a weak social gospel that challenges and confronts no one about their spiritual deficiencies.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Is Christian pacifism biblical?
The subject of Christian pacifism is worthy of examination in light of the current NZ Parliamentary debate on Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows parents to use corrective force on their children. Much of the opposition comes from groups who advocate complete non-violence in society, including various pacifist movements.
Let's take a current events issue such as the war in Iraq and examine where the support and the opposition comes from. On the supporting side are, yes, Christian people, in the US and other countries, and people of largely a right-wing political perspective. On the opposing side are a whole range of views, many of them tied up in socialism, and also Christians who oppose all force - hence these are called Christian Pacifists. In fact, one of the hostage crises in Iraq involved the "Christian Peacemaker Teams" with Quaker associations, and the latter have long been known in the church for a strongly pacifist view.
The main theological line of reasoning for Christian Pacifism starts with Jesus' unction to "love your enemies" found in Matthew 5:43-44. From this we are supposed to accept that this means we should not engage in any use of force against people we don't like or any such thing. But in fact, loving our enemies does not imply that we have to accept what they do or become a doormat to be trampled over by them. This central tenet of Christian pacifism implies that there should be no laws or justice system. Well, if there were no laws, there would be a huge crime problem and society would suffer for it. Because of that being the case, we do have a legal/justice system and it involves the use of corrective force. In John 2:15, we read that Jesus took a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple. Quite clearly, Jesus believed that force was justified in certain contexts. And of course, Jesus was executed and it was God's will that he be executed. God had no qualms about the use of physical force against His own Son.
A Christian pacifist might argue that if we saw evil in the world, we should just let it go past and not do anything about it. After all, if force was involved, that would be the greater evil. This all falls down when we consider the situation of World War II. Hitler was eventually crushed by the armies of the Allied powers, but not before he had managed to snuff out the lives of six million Jews and at least another six million Europeans. The war against Hitler's tyranny wasn't won by pacifism, it was won by military might and many Christians went out and fought on that basis.
Most Christian pacifists want to deny the Old Testament when God sent His own warriors of Israel into battle to crush the evil in Canaan and other lands around Jerusalem. It's a fact that God uses force against evil, including the hands of His own servants. However, this tends to get glossed over by Christian pacifists. In the New Testament, of course, we have the Book of Revelation making again references to the military power of God and His armies coming out to crush the evil.
A way way way back in this blog, perhaps at the very beginning, I posted an article about good vs evil dualism. I guess the average biblopacifist would object to certain countries being judged as evil and others as good. They would argue that this unfairly stigmatises various countries. The fact remains, however, that if we want to defend our way of life, the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, then we must recognise the evil in our midst. Biblopacifists will still say that the US got what was coming to it. The US somehow deserved to get hit by Al-Qaeda. Of course, this exactly the kind of judgement being made that we are not supposed to make of certain countries as the pacifists would have it. Saddam Hussein got a bad rap, didn't he. It is all quite contradictory.
The biggest political problem for biblopacifism is that, like other forms of pacifism, its adherents tend to have an overwhelmingly left-wing political perspective; this really puts biblopacifism as an adaption of existing pacifist beliefs into a Christian perspective, rather than the other way around. Pacifism is strongly rooted in humanism and other anti-Christian (including religious) perspectives on life, so it is not a belief that is naturally suited to Christianity. This type of belief was extremely prevalent and at its peak in the early years of the 19th century - and then along came World War 1 and the idea that humanism and rationalism were going to produce a better world quickly died a sudden and deserved death. Pacifism dropped around that time, and in the Second World War in NZ, military conscription was supported by certain former pacifists in the Labour Government of the era.
The next biggest problem for biblopacifism is its strong association with liberal churches, that deny the authenticity of large chunks of the Bible. Obviously, this is necessary, in order to chop out those bits that contradict what Jesus supposedly commanded or expected all Christians to behave like. Why stop there, of course? Soon, every word that Jesus said can have a different meaning and be reinterpreted to mean something else, or nothing at all. Once that rot has started, it's very difficult to stop it.
The biggest problem in society is that many types of evil are only checked by the use of corrective force. For many evangelical Christians, their faith requires them to act, if necessary physically, against the evil in society. This is called being a "doer of the Word" rather than just someone who listens but does nothing. I believe that is the correct view to take in the Church. To do nothing means to allow evil to triumph. That is not what Christians should endorse in the world. We must oppose all attempts to water down or do away with corrective force and a justice system in society. Christian pacifism is really anathema to us Evangelicals; biblopacificists have replaced the spiritual power of the Christian gospel with a weak social gospel that challenges and confronts no one about their spiritual deficiencies.
26 March 2007 - Family Integrity #207 -- Con Job
26 March 2007 - Family Integrity #207 -- Con Job
This is must reading: the government's argument to repeal Section 59 is a con job.
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.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
Our Home....Our Castle
This is must reading: the government's argument to repeal Section 59 is a con job.
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.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
Our Home....Our Castle
26 March 2007 - The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.- Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00325.htm
Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
Monday, 26 March 2007, 12:52 pm
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
26 March 2007
Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
Judge Inglis QC did not support Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS) determined efforts to remove four foster boys from an outstanding foster parent "Mrs C" based on CYFS overblown "reservations" presented to the Family Court, over her very limited historic use of mild smacking for "correction". In the Family Court in Auckland in July/August 2003 the Judge accepted Mrs C's "evidence about the three occasions [she had smacked her boys] and that they were the only occasions on which the children had been smacked at her home." The specific incidents came to light when a psychologist interviewed the boys. (CYFS have regularly instructed their social workers to inform parents that smacking is "child abuse", "violence" and "hitting" and for years have deliberately and dishonestly conflated mild smacking with "child abuse"). The Judge accepted that section 59 of Crimes Act (1961) provided a justification for Mrs C and all foster parents to use "reasonable force" for correction of their children, despite the fact that CYFS had a policy against the use of corporal punishment. (Sue Bradford's private members bill that all Labour MPs are being forced to support, in some cases against their conscience, would remove this justification/defence if it became law).
"The first [incident involving Mrs C]: was when she had parked her car, with all four children in it, on a slope, and one of the children mischievously let off the handbrake so that the car rolled back and there was nearly a serious accident. After reapplying the handbrake she gave that child a smack with her bare hand. The second was when she found two of the boys pocking pieces of paper into the electric radiator so as to start a fire. She gave each of them a smack with her bare hand. The third incident happened when it became known that one of the smaller boys had formed a habit of spreading faeces over the toilet seat and other available surfaces. She warned him of what would happen if he did it again, emphasising health risks, and when he did so she gave him a smack with her bare hand." The Judge noted that "the psychologist, in her evidence, wished to record that she had detected no indication of excessive smacking, no signs of fear, that none of the boys appeared to be bothered about the incidents, and that there was in her opinion no question of physical abuse." [Family Court, Auckland. CYFS 004082-086D 01, July 29, 30, 14 August 2003, par. 40].
If Ms Bradford's ridiculous anti-family bill, that makes the use of "reasonable force" (including smacking) for the purposes of "correction" of a child, a criminal offence, becomes law; loving parents like Mrs "C" will have no legal defence against allegations of criminal activity leveled against them by CHEFS or any other agency or individual, once charged by police. Judge Inglis ruled that given the nature of the offences committed by the boys under Mrs C's care, ' "correction" was necessary and that each child was smacked in that honest - and indeed justified - belief.' He stated: "I am left in no doubt that each child would have clearly understood the reason why that punishment was necessary and would have seen it not as rejection by a loved and trusted adult or an arbitrary abuse of power, but as decisive, instant, necessary and fair correction... in each instance... the degree of force used was mild and reasonable within the context of the circumstances as they presented themselves as true." [par 45] "In her oral evidence Mrs C acknowledged, with complete candour, that she had smacked one or other of the children on three separate occasions. I had no difficulty accepting the accuracy of her evidence that all those occasions were long before the present hearing, and that once the children understood - to their surprise - that she was capable of giving them a smack, she has never had occasion to do the same." [par. 40]
Judge Inglis is one of the most highly respected and senior family court judges in New Zealand. He acknowledged that CYFS had "good reasons" to have a policy against the use of corporal punishment "given its responsibility for sometimes seriously physically abused children". However, he noted that "there was some debate during the hearing on whether in circumstances of the present case the Department's policy could be legally operative because of the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961, s 59".
If Ms Bradford's bill becomes law, the force of the amendments added during the select committee stage will be to ensure that whenever a parent or person in the place of a parent faces charges in court for using any form of force for the purposes of correction on a their child; once that purpose is established, there is no defence or justification they can appeal to in law. Even if the purpose involved other factors beside correction, for example safeguarding the health and well-being of the family, the component of correction, however slight, removes any defence they might have had if the purpose was ONLY that of stopping a dangerous behaviour/habit.
Judge Inglis commended "Mrs C" in the 2003 case for her outstanding parenting skills with the boys. He awarded her full custody of the boys to her and negated the custody order vested in the Chief Executive of CYFS that had made them custodians of the state. That department, so obsessed with its concerns over the 'smacking', had taken the 'allegations' of smacking (= "assault" in the assessment of CYFS) against Mrs C to the family Court in order to prove them and in the hope of blocking Mrs "C" from ever having custody of the boys again. Thank God Judge Inglis found that section 59 provided a defence for Mrs C's loving and corrective actions.
The Society is calling on all MPs to vote against Sue Bradford's "silly" and "ridiculous" bill. These pejorative words have been used by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, to rubbish s. 59 of the Crimes Act. (The Society chooses to apply the same words to apply to Bradford's flawed bill). Bradford and Clark have both been guilty of lying to the New Zealand public by claiming that if the bill becomes law, it will not ban smacking outright and will not criminalise good parents who apply a mild smack to a child for correction.
The case involving "Mrs C" was presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee by the Society in its written and oral submissions on Ms Bradford's flawed private member's bill. The Labour and Green MPs on the committee exhibited no interest whatsoever in any aspect of the Society's well-researched and comprehensive submission. It was very clear that their minds were not open to any viewpoint other than their own: the complete repeal of s. 59.
A summary of the Society's submission can be found at: http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/97/41/
ENDS
Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
Monday, 26 March 2007, 12:52 pm
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
26 March 2007
Section 59 defence thwarts attempt to split family
Judge Inglis QC did not support Child Youth and Family Services (CYFS) determined efforts to remove four foster boys from an outstanding foster parent "Mrs C" based on CYFS overblown "reservations" presented to the Family Court, over her very limited historic use of mild smacking for "correction". In the Family Court in Auckland in July/August 2003 the Judge accepted Mrs C's "evidence about the three occasions [she had smacked her boys] and that they were the only occasions on which the children had been smacked at her home." The specific incidents came to light when a psychologist interviewed the boys. (CYFS have regularly instructed their social workers to inform parents that smacking is "child abuse", "violence" and "hitting" and for years have deliberately and dishonestly conflated mild smacking with "child abuse"). The Judge accepted that section 59 of Crimes Act (1961) provided a justification for Mrs C and all foster parents to use "reasonable force" for correction of their children, despite the fact that CYFS had a policy against the use of corporal punishment. (Sue Bradford's private members bill that all Labour MPs are being forced to support, in some cases against their conscience, would remove this justification/defence if it became law).
"The first [incident involving Mrs C]: was when she had parked her car, with all four children in it, on a slope, and one of the children mischievously let off the handbrake so that the car rolled back and there was nearly a serious accident. After reapplying the handbrake she gave that child a smack with her bare hand. The second was when she found two of the boys pocking pieces of paper into the electric radiator so as to start a fire. She gave each of them a smack with her bare hand. The third incident happened when it became known that one of the smaller boys had formed a habit of spreading faeces over the toilet seat and other available surfaces. She warned him of what would happen if he did it again, emphasising health risks, and when he did so she gave him a smack with her bare hand." The Judge noted that "the psychologist, in her evidence, wished to record that she had detected no indication of excessive smacking, no signs of fear, that none of the boys appeared to be bothered about the incidents, and that there was in her opinion no question of physical abuse." [Family Court, Auckland. CYFS 004082-086D 01, July 29, 30, 14 August 2003, par. 40].
If Ms Bradford's ridiculous anti-family bill, that makes the use of "reasonable force" (including smacking) for the purposes of "correction" of a child, a criminal offence, becomes law; loving parents like Mrs "C" will have no legal defence against allegations of criminal activity leveled against them by CHEFS or any other agency or individual, once charged by police. Judge Inglis ruled that given the nature of the offences committed by the boys under Mrs C's care, ' "correction" was necessary and that each child was smacked in that honest - and indeed justified - belief.' He stated: "I am left in no doubt that each child would have clearly understood the reason why that punishment was necessary and would have seen it not as rejection by a loved and trusted adult or an arbitrary abuse of power, but as decisive, instant, necessary and fair correction... in each instance... the degree of force used was mild and reasonable within the context of the circumstances as they presented themselves as true." [par 45] "In her oral evidence Mrs C acknowledged, with complete candour, that she had smacked one or other of the children on three separate occasions. I had no difficulty accepting the accuracy of her evidence that all those occasions were long before the present hearing, and that once the children understood - to their surprise - that she was capable of giving them a smack, she has never had occasion to do the same." [par. 40]
Judge Inglis is one of the most highly respected and senior family court judges in New Zealand. He acknowledged that CYFS had "good reasons" to have a policy against the use of corporal punishment "given its responsibility for sometimes seriously physically abused children". However, he noted that "there was some debate during the hearing on whether in circumstances of the present case the Department's policy could be legally operative because of the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961, s 59".
If Ms Bradford's bill becomes law, the force of the amendments added during the select committee stage will be to ensure that whenever a parent or person in the place of a parent faces charges in court for using any form of force for the purposes of correction on a their child; once that purpose is established, there is no defence or justification they can appeal to in law. Even if the purpose involved other factors beside correction, for example safeguarding the health and well-being of the family, the component of correction, however slight, removes any defence they might have had if the purpose was ONLY that of stopping a dangerous behaviour/habit.
Judge Inglis commended "Mrs C" in the 2003 case for her outstanding parenting skills with the boys. He awarded her full custody of the boys to her and negated the custody order vested in the Chief Executive of CYFS that had made them custodians of the state. That department, so obsessed with its concerns over the 'smacking', had taken the 'allegations' of smacking (= "assault" in the assessment of CYFS) against Mrs C to the family Court in order to prove them and in the hope of blocking Mrs "C" from ever having custody of the boys again. Thank God Judge Inglis found that section 59 provided a defence for Mrs C's loving and corrective actions.
The Society is calling on all MPs to vote against Sue Bradford's "silly" and "ridiculous" bill. These pejorative words have been used by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, to rubbish s. 59 of the Crimes Act. (The Society chooses to apply the same words to apply to Bradford's flawed bill). Bradford and Clark have both been guilty of lying to the New Zealand public by claiming that if the bill becomes law, it will not ban smacking outright and will not criminalise good parents who apply a mild smack to a child for correction.
The case involving "Mrs C" was presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee by the Society in its written and oral submissions on Ms Bradford's flawed private member's bill. The Labour and Green MPs on the committee exhibited no interest whatsoever in any aspect of the Society's well-researched and comprehensive submission. It was very clear that their minds were not open to any viewpoint other than their own: the complete repeal of s. 59.
A summary of the Society's submission can be found at: http://spcs.org.nz/content/view/97/41/
ENDS
26 March 2007 - Family Integrity - Selling Out
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00320.htm
Selling Out
Sunday, 25 March 2007, 12:52 pm
Press Release: Family Integrity
Press Release For Immediate Distribution
Selling Out
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they've done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won't even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party's steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford's Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of "rights" determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.
"The best interests of the child" is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations...and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors' offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford's Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.
ends
Selling Out
Sunday, 25 March 2007, 12:52 pm
Press Release: Family Integrity
Press Release For Immediate Distribution
Selling Out
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they've done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won't even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party's steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford's Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of "rights" determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.
"The best interests of the child" is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations...and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors' offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford's Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.
ends
Sunday, 25 March 2007
24 March 07 - NZ Centre for Political Debate - The Smacking Bill a Con Job
24 March 07
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
The Smacking Bill a Con Job
New Zealand is being conned over the so-called anti-smacking bill.
Touted as being the way to prevent child abuse, this bill is part of an international movement designed to undermine parental authority and increase state control over children. While a dozen or so countries have succumbed to the pressure of the anti-smacking lobby and the United Nations, the overwhelming majority have not (see “Smacking Laws in other Countries” BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_3866000/3866747.stm
The promoters of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill want to remove section 59 of the Crimes Act, so that parents who discipline their children using “reasonable” force will no longer be protected from the charge of assault. They claim this is necessary because section 59 is being used as a shield to protect child abusers. Yet since 1990 there have only been seven successful defenses using section 59!
The public can recognize a con job when they see one. That is why they are fighting back with email campaigns, newspaper advertisements, marches, meetings, petitions and debates. It is this organised opposition that is threatening Labour to such an extent that they are now plotting to undermine the democratic process by calling the House into urgency. If they succeed, the bill will be fast-tracked through Parliament with the rest of the committee stages and the final third reading all held this week.
At the centre of the controversy over the bill is the Prime Minister. She reassured the country before the last election that she would not support a smacking ban: "As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court." (see http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1024326 )
The Minister of Justice at the time, Phil Goff agreed saying that while he supported the bill going to a select committee, he did not want to make criminals out of parents (click here to read the Herald article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10329981).
When the bill was first introduced into Parliament, Labour MPs were asked to support it to a select committee on the understanding they would be given a conscience vote for the subsequent stages. However, when Philip Field resigned and Labour needed the Green Party’s support to stay in power, all of that changed and the Prime Minister now expects all Labour MPs to vote with the party.
But in a Parliamentary democracy they don’t have to do that. MPs have sovereign rights and history is rich with stories of brave MPs who cross the floor over important matters putting the best interests of their constituents and the country ahead of party politics.
When the anti-smacking debate started, the government funded a Canadian anti-smacking advocate Dr Joan Durrant to visit New Zealand to promote her controversial view that Sweden’s smacking ban – introduced in 1979 - had reduced child abuse to “virtually zero”. It is a view that had been discredited a few years ago by other researchers (see Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213).
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish attorney and President of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, was brought to New Zealand (by private interests), to address the Select Committee and put the record straight about Sweden. She is this week’s NZCPD Guest Commentator. In an article entitled “The Smacking Ban: A Dangerous Law”, Ruby states:
Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. (To read the article click http://www.nzcpd.com/guest46.htm)
The abolition of smacking in Sweden has resulted in children being taught their rights to such an extent that many parents are now afraid of them: children freely use intimidation, threatening to report parents to police and social services, if they don’t get their way. Tragically, when these children finally realise the disastrous effects that police and social service investigations are having on their families and try to withdraw their accusations, they are unable to do so (for more details see “When Parents Become Victims” click http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm)
A summary of some of the cases that have been taken against parents since the law-change took place in Sweden makes for chilling reading: shoppers calling the police when parents restrain their children in the supermarket; pre-schoolers taken into care for asking questions about smacking; parents prosecuted for insisting teenagers help around the house; unsubstantiated claims of abuse by neigbours and work colleagues forcing police and social service investigations; foster parents arrested for restraining their violent charges (to read the “Case Law” details click here http://www.nzcpd.com/Swedish%20smacking%20cases.pdf).
Both Sue Bradford and Helen Clark have tried to claim that the Police will not prosecute parents who lightly smack a child, but the Police advice to the Select Committee refutes this view: any case of alleged violence against a child would have to be investigated by the Police with the involvement of social services where possible (to read the Police advice click here )http://www.nzcpd.com/policeadvice.pdf.
The President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, in an editorial in the latest edition of Police News also states very clearly that using force against children will be categorised as family violence and “offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested” (click here to read his article “Smacking and Discretion” http://www.policeassn.org.nz/communications/index.htm).
A legal opinion by Peter McKenzie QC has also concluded that parents who not only smack their child, but also remove them against their will to a time out zone or “naughty mat” would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed bill.
Meanwhile, in Britain where a bid to ban smacking outright failed but led to the law being amended to clarify what is meant by smacking, a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into youth crime is being told that fear of prosecution as a result of the new law change is now preventing parents from correcting and disciplining their children. An article in the Telegraph, A Smack Can Keep Children From Crime Says Police Leader, states: "Parents are authority figures in their children's lives and they need to have effective sanctions at their disposal when their children misbehave. If children don't learn to respect their parents, there is little hope that they will respect other authority figures. If parents are to be held responsible for their children's behaviour at school and in the community, it is vital that their authority to reasonably correct their children is recognised. The more parents' authority is undermined, the less responsibility they will be inclined to take for their children, and the more their children will grow out-of-control (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml ).
With New Zealand’s Chief Family Court Judge now calling for greater accountability for young offenders, is it sensible that our Parliament appears set to pass laws that will undermine parental authority? As the police Chief in the Telegraph article said: “Children lack discipline and turn to crime because their parents are too scared to smack them. Parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge”. Is this really what we want for New Zealand?
If you agree with the views expressed in this newsletter, please do two things: firstly, send it on to as many other people as you can to read; secondly, become a financial subscriber to support its continuation (click here to subscribe http://www.nzcpd.com/support.htm).
The poll this week asks: Do you believe that the repeal of section 59 would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime? Take part in poll http://www.nzcpd.com/polls.htm
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly74.htm
The Smacking Bill a Con Job
New Zealand is being conned over the so-called anti-smacking bill.
Touted as being the way to prevent child abuse, this bill is part of an international movement designed to undermine parental authority and increase state control over children. While a dozen or so countries have succumbed to the pressure of the anti-smacking lobby and the United Nations, the overwhelming majority have not (see “Smacking Laws in other Countries” BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_3866000/3866747.stm
The promoters of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill want to remove section 59 of the Crimes Act, so that parents who discipline their children using “reasonable” force will no longer be protected from the charge of assault. They claim this is necessary because section 59 is being used as a shield to protect child abusers. Yet since 1990 there have only been seven successful defenses using section 59!
The public can recognize a con job when they see one. That is why they are fighting back with email campaigns, newspaper advertisements, marches, meetings, petitions and debates. It is this organised opposition that is threatening Labour to such an extent that they are now plotting to undermine the democratic process by calling the House into urgency. If they succeed, the bill will be fast-tracked through Parliament with the rest of the committee stages and the final third reading all held this week.
At the centre of the controversy over the bill is the Prime Minister. She reassured the country before the last election that she would not support a smacking ban: "As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court." (see http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1024326 )
The Minister of Justice at the time, Phil Goff agreed saying that while he supported the bill going to a select committee, he did not want to make criminals out of parents (click here to read the Herald article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10329981).
When the bill was first introduced into Parliament, Labour MPs were asked to support it to a select committee on the understanding they would be given a conscience vote for the subsequent stages. However, when Philip Field resigned and Labour needed the Green Party’s support to stay in power, all of that changed and the Prime Minister now expects all Labour MPs to vote with the party.
But in a Parliamentary democracy they don’t have to do that. MPs have sovereign rights and history is rich with stories of brave MPs who cross the floor over important matters putting the best interests of their constituents and the country ahead of party politics.
When the anti-smacking debate started, the government funded a Canadian anti-smacking advocate Dr Joan Durrant to visit New Zealand to promote her controversial view that Sweden’s smacking ban – introduced in 1979 - had reduced child abuse to “virtually zero”. It is a view that had been discredited a few years ago by other researchers (see Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10368213).
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish attorney and President of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, was brought to New Zealand (by private interests), to address the Select Committee and put the record straight about Sweden. She is this week’s NZCPD Guest Commentator. In an article entitled “The Smacking Ban: A Dangerous Law”, Ruby states:
Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. (To read the article click http://www.nzcpd.com/guest46.htm)
The abolition of smacking in Sweden has resulted in children being taught their rights to such an extent that many parents are now afraid of them: children freely use intimidation, threatening to report parents to police and social services, if they don’t get their way. Tragically, when these children finally realise the disastrous effects that police and social service investigations are having on their families and try to withdraw their accusations, they are unable to do so (for more details see “When Parents Become Victims” click http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm)
A summary of some of the cases that have been taken against parents since the law-change took place in Sweden makes for chilling reading: shoppers calling the police when parents restrain their children in the supermarket; pre-schoolers taken into care for asking questions about smacking; parents prosecuted for insisting teenagers help around the house; unsubstantiated claims of abuse by neigbours and work colleagues forcing police and social service investigations; foster parents arrested for restraining their violent charges (to read the “Case Law” details click here http://www.nzcpd.com/Swedish%20smacking%20cases.pdf).
Both Sue Bradford and Helen Clark have tried to claim that the Police will not prosecute parents who lightly smack a child, but the Police advice to the Select Committee refutes this view: any case of alleged violence against a child would have to be investigated by the Police with the involvement of social services where possible (to read the Police advice click here )http://www.nzcpd.com/policeadvice.pdf.
The President of the Police Association, Greg O’Connor, in an editorial in the latest edition of Police News also states very clearly that using force against children will be categorised as family violence and “offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested” (click here to read his article “Smacking and Discretion” http://www.policeassn.org.nz/communications/index.htm).
A legal opinion by Peter McKenzie QC has also concluded that parents who not only smack their child, but also remove them against their will to a time out zone or “naughty mat” would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed bill.
Meanwhile, in Britain where a bid to ban smacking outright failed but led to the law being amended to clarify what is meant by smacking, a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into youth crime is being told that fear of prosecution as a result of the new law change is now preventing parents from correcting and disciplining their children. An article in the Telegraph, A Smack Can Keep Children From Crime Says Police Leader, states: "Parents are authority figures in their children's lives and they need to have effective sanctions at their disposal when their children misbehave. If children don't learn to respect their parents, there is little hope that they will respect other authority figures. If parents are to be held responsible for their children's behaviour at school and in the community, it is vital that their authority to reasonably correct their children is recognised. The more parents' authority is undermined, the less responsibility they will be inclined to take for their children, and the more their children will grow out-of-control (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml ).
With New Zealand’s Chief Family Court Judge now calling for greater accountability for young offenders, is it sensible that our Parliament appears set to pass laws that will undermine parental authority? As the police Chief in the Telegraph article said: “Children lack discipline and turn to crime because their parents are too scared to smack them. Parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge”. Is this really what we want for New Zealand?
If you agree with the views expressed in this newsletter, please do two things: firstly, send it on to as many other people as you can to read; secondly, become a financial subscriber to support its continuation (click here to subscribe http://www.nzcpd.com/support.htm).
The poll this week asks: Do you believe that the repeal of section 59 would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and youth crime? Take part in poll http://www.nzcpd.com/polls.htm
23 March 2007 - Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.- Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00310.htm
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
Friday, 23 March 2007, 5:15 pm
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
A tragic case involving the criminalisation of two experienced, mature and loving foster parents for lightly smacking their foster boy for his extensive vandalism, and the splitting up for good of their family, serves as a serious warning to New Zealanders of what will happen if Sue Bradford’s “silly” and “ridiculous” bill, that seeks to repeal s. 59, becomes law. (These very same pejorative words were used by the Prime Minister Helen Clark in a live interview, in the context of her giving support to Bradford’s bill, to rubbish section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides a justification for parents to use “reasonable force” in the context of corrective domestic discipline of their kids).
Helen Clark, who has never had children (nor have her two male Labour party whips who are forcing all Labour MPs to support Bradford’s flawed bill,) has been quite wrong to rubbish s. 59. About 80-90 percent of New Zealanders strongly disagree with her. Based on extensive nation-wide polls over the last two years, they all want s. 59 retained and oppose Bradford’s flawed bill that has now become Clark’s troublesome ‘baby’. The remaining 10 to 20 percent who have swallowed Bradford’s rhetoric find it hard to believe that the government authorities will take kids away from good parents for formal complaints of smacking "correctly", should the bill become law. "It's just not going to happen for good parents who smack correctly" they scream at opponents of the bill. These vitriolic ideologues are already obsessed with proselytising their beliefs that only bad and inadequate parents smack their kids for corrective purposes.
In her recent Green Party press release Bradford denies that her bill will criminalise parents who use “reasonable force” (including light smacking) with their children to correct them. Clark too has claimed that the bill will not have the effect of banning smacking. Both claims are outright lies and they both know it. Their gullible and misguided followers assume that kids will not be taken away from parents by government agencies for “light smacking” or other applications of "reasonable force" used for correction. Bradford has beguiled them into believing that police will just turn a blind eye to all complaints over such mild forms of corporal corrective discipline. No doubt Clark and Bradford believe that they will be focused on pursuing rapists, murders and terrorists and will not be side-tracked by reports of smacking.
The case of foster parents Anne and Don Eathorne reveals how the government agency Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) removed two long-term foster kids from them just days after highly inflammatory allegations surfaced that they had been ‘abused’. The whole case was the subject of an intense and detailed expose on a TVNZ Sunday documentary that screened on 9 April 2006 (producer Chris Harrington TVNZ). The grave injustice by CYFS against the parents was well documented. The national case manager for CYFS, Ms Lorraine Williams, was interviewed at length on the programme about the case and repeatedly inferred that the couple were child abusers, thereby defaming them in a libellous and unprofessional outbursts. Her only basis for such vitriolic accusations was a “police file” containing ‘evidence’ against the couple, ‘evidence’ that the police saw fit not to pursue before the Court jury and so dropped.
The Eathornes had fostered 26 children over a number of years and had an unblemished record, prior to CYFS removing the two kids from them. At the time the programme went to air the Eathornes were still on the CYFS books as legitimate foster parents. As yet CYFS has failed to go through due process to remove them officially as foster parents and failed to follow due process when they removed the kids.
The Eathorne’s foster boy, aged 10 years at the time, was lovingly disciplined in 2002 by Anne Eathorne for wilfully causing about $5,000 damage (vandalism) to farm equipment owned by their employer. Some months later he did about $1,000 of damage to his school principal's car. He again was lovingly but firmly disciplined by Anne. Don Eathorne was not present at either discipline sessions. The “extensive property damage” that led to the discipline was noted in Judge Colin Doherty’s court decision in 2006 in which he convicted them of child assault for smacking. He had noted that they had gone way beyond the call of duty in paying for the medical bills of the boy, payments made prior to the corporal discipline. He noted that Anne had openly admitted to disciplining the boy when first approached by the police about the historical case.
CYFS who were ultimately responsible for the boy (and his sister) refused to pay anything towards the vandalism bills and deny to this day that the vandalism took place. The Eathornes were forced to cover both bills in full themselves. The boy ceased his vandalism after the second benign discipline session. Over two years later the incident was reported to CYFS, not by the boy who was disciplined, but by another older foster boy (a short-term placement that commenced on 7 April 2005) who heard about it through the 'victim' while stating short-term in the Eathorne's home. The older boy was placed by CYFS at very short notice, with the Eathornes in Karamea. CYFS could find no one else willing to care for him and the Eathorne's felt pressured by CYFS and then offered to assist. That boy, who arrived with no CYFS paperwork as required, was well known to CYFS social workers as a liar and a very troubled individual. He was dropped at their doorstep one evening. He got talking to the other two younger foster children and learnt of the historical ‘smacking’ incidents that occurred several years earlier. He then ran away from the Eathornes after staying only a few days with them and reported the 'assaults' to his CYFS social worker, embellishing the tale with a number of other claims of abuse.
CYFS acted within a few days of learning of the incidents and without notifying the foster parents or going through due process, arrived at their doorsteps and removed the boy AND his sister (both in long-term foster care). Don and Anne have had no access to the kids since. It is clear that CYFS worked closely with police to ensure that they faced serious charges in court. Both Anne and Don were fined $500 each in the Greymouth District Court on 30 January 2006 By Judge Colin Doherty, convicted of an assault against a child, under s 194 of the Crimes Act, and had to pay $130 in court costs. Neither can ever work with kids in any role again - professional or voluntary. The 'assault' consisted of two short smacks to the open palm of the hand delivered by Anne (Don was not present). The boy willingly complied with the corrective discipline and only reasonable force was used. He never raised any complaints with his CYFS social worker over the years prior to the matter coming to the attention of the police via the short-term foster boy’s complaint. Anne demonstrated on the Sunday programme how she carried out the safe smacking which in no way harmed the boy, as the Judge had noted.
The Judge accepted submissions from the parents' lawyer Mr Doug Taffs that the smacking discipline was "benign:" and "not gratuitous violence" (Dominion Post 11/02/06 NZPA story). He also accepted Mr Taff's submissions on behalf of his clients that they both had unblemished records as parents and foster parents and had gone well beyond the call of duty in covering medical expenses for the boy for his health problems prior to the two smacking incidents. He also accepted that it was appropriate for Mr Taffs to submit that they should both be discharged without conviction. However, to the Eathorne’s shock, he inexplicably convicted them BOTH of assault and fined them BOTH (total $1,130).
Following the two brief and benign discipline sessions, the foster boy's behaviour showed a marked improvement and the vandalism, according to the couple, ceased. Judge Colin Doherty who issued the judgement with reference to the Crimes Act 1961, did not make any reference to a s. 59 defence to assault and the couple's lawyer Mr Doug Taffs did not refer them to this possible defence that was technically open to them. Neither Don nor Anne had heard about a s. 59 defence at the time and were manipulated, they believe, into pleading guilty of smacking the boy, which Anne had never denied, in a so-called “plea-bargain”. Again, it must be stressed that Anne had always been upfront and honest and acknowledged that she had smacked the boy for wilful vandalism to correct his wayward behaviour. They expected to be discharged without a conviction after agreeing to the plea bargain, but the Judge instead accepted their honest admission of smacking using reasonable force for correction as an admission of assault, which clearly it was not, if s. 59 had been properly applied. S. 59 provides a justification for the use of such ALL parents and foster parents, but was ignored by the Court.
If Bradford succeeds in getting her flawed bill into law, the s. 59 defence will be gone altogether for all parents and caregivers. Parents who use ANY form of reasonable force (including light smacking) for the purpose of correction, will be committing a criminal offences in law and will open themselves up to having formal charges laid against them by their own kids, neighbours or zealous CYFS social workers based on hearsay evidence, and possibly find themselves convicted of assault and child abuse.
Parents and especially foster parents have much to be concerned about over this bill. There are six cases similar to the above involving CYFS that have been notified to the Families Commission by a member of our organisation. The Society documented others in its written and oral submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee considering Bradford's bill last year.
ENDS
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
Friday, 23 March 2007, 5:15 pm
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
A tragic case involving the criminalisation of two experienced, mature and loving foster parents for lightly smacking their foster boy for his extensive vandalism, and the splitting up for good of their family, serves as a serious warning to New Zealanders of what will happen if Sue Bradford’s “silly” and “ridiculous” bill, that seeks to repeal s. 59, becomes law. (These very same pejorative words were used by the Prime Minister Helen Clark in a live interview, in the context of her giving support to Bradford’s bill, to rubbish section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides a justification for parents to use “reasonable force” in the context of corrective domestic discipline of their kids).
Helen Clark, who has never had children (nor have her two male Labour party whips who are forcing all Labour MPs to support Bradford’s flawed bill,) has been quite wrong to rubbish s. 59. About 80-90 percent of New Zealanders strongly disagree with her. Based on extensive nation-wide polls over the last two years, they all want s. 59 retained and oppose Bradford’s flawed bill that has now become Clark’s troublesome ‘baby’. The remaining 10 to 20 percent who have swallowed Bradford’s rhetoric find it hard to believe that the government authorities will take kids away from good parents for formal complaints of smacking "correctly", should the bill become law. "It's just not going to happen for good parents who smack correctly" they scream at opponents of the bill. These vitriolic ideologues are already obsessed with proselytising their beliefs that only bad and inadequate parents smack their kids for corrective purposes.
In her recent Green Party press release Bradford denies that her bill will criminalise parents who use “reasonable force” (including light smacking) with their children to correct them. Clark too has claimed that the bill will not have the effect of banning smacking. Both claims are outright lies and they both know it. Their gullible and misguided followers assume that kids will not be taken away from parents by government agencies for “light smacking” or other applications of "reasonable force" used for correction. Bradford has beguiled them into believing that police will just turn a blind eye to all complaints over such mild forms of corporal corrective discipline. No doubt Clark and Bradford believe that they will be focused on pursuing rapists, murders and terrorists and will not be side-tracked by reports of smacking.
The case of foster parents Anne and Don Eathorne reveals how the government agency Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) removed two long-term foster kids from them just days after highly inflammatory allegations surfaced that they had been ‘abused’. The whole case was the subject of an intense and detailed expose on a TVNZ Sunday documentary that screened on 9 April 2006 (producer Chris Harrington TVNZ). The grave injustice by CYFS against the parents was well documented. The national case manager for CYFS, Ms Lorraine Williams, was interviewed at length on the programme about the case and repeatedly inferred that the couple were child abusers, thereby defaming them in a libellous and unprofessional outbursts. Her only basis for such vitriolic accusations was a “police file” containing ‘evidence’ against the couple, ‘evidence’ that the police saw fit not to pursue before the Court jury and so dropped.
The Eathornes had fostered 26 children over a number of years and had an unblemished record, prior to CYFS removing the two kids from them. At the time the programme went to air the Eathornes were still on the CYFS books as legitimate foster parents. As yet CYFS has failed to go through due process to remove them officially as foster parents and failed to follow due process when they removed the kids.
The Eathorne’s foster boy, aged 10 years at the time, was lovingly disciplined in 2002 by Anne Eathorne for wilfully causing about $5,000 damage (vandalism) to farm equipment owned by their employer. Some months later he did about $1,000 of damage to his school principal's car. He again was lovingly but firmly disciplined by Anne. Don Eathorne was not present at either discipline sessions. The “extensive property damage” that led to the discipline was noted in Judge Colin Doherty’s court decision in 2006 in which he convicted them of child assault for smacking. He had noted that they had gone way beyond the call of duty in paying for the medical bills of the boy, payments made prior to the corporal discipline. He noted that Anne had openly admitted to disciplining the boy when first approached by the police about the historical case.
CYFS who were ultimately responsible for the boy (and his sister) refused to pay anything towards the vandalism bills and deny to this day that the vandalism took place. The Eathornes were forced to cover both bills in full themselves. The boy ceased his vandalism after the second benign discipline session. Over two years later the incident was reported to CYFS, not by the boy who was disciplined, but by another older foster boy (a short-term placement that commenced on 7 April 2005) who heard about it through the 'victim' while stating short-term in the Eathorne's home. The older boy was placed by CYFS at very short notice, with the Eathornes in Karamea. CYFS could find no one else willing to care for him and the Eathorne's felt pressured by CYFS and then offered to assist. That boy, who arrived with no CYFS paperwork as required, was well known to CYFS social workers as a liar and a very troubled individual. He was dropped at their doorstep one evening. He got talking to the other two younger foster children and learnt of the historical ‘smacking’ incidents that occurred several years earlier. He then ran away from the Eathornes after staying only a few days with them and reported the 'assaults' to his CYFS social worker, embellishing the tale with a number of other claims of abuse.
CYFS acted within a few days of learning of the incidents and without notifying the foster parents or going through due process, arrived at their doorsteps and removed the boy AND his sister (both in long-term foster care). Don and Anne have had no access to the kids since. It is clear that CYFS worked closely with police to ensure that they faced serious charges in court. Both Anne and Don were fined $500 each in the Greymouth District Court on 30 January 2006 By Judge Colin Doherty, convicted of an assault against a child, under s 194 of the Crimes Act, and had to pay $130 in court costs. Neither can ever work with kids in any role again - professional or voluntary. The 'assault' consisted of two short smacks to the open palm of the hand delivered by Anne (Don was not present). The boy willingly complied with the corrective discipline and only reasonable force was used. He never raised any complaints with his CYFS social worker over the years prior to the matter coming to the attention of the police via the short-term foster boy’s complaint. Anne demonstrated on the Sunday programme how she carried out the safe smacking which in no way harmed the boy, as the Judge had noted.
The Judge accepted submissions from the parents' lawyer Mr Doug Taffs that the smacking discipline was "benign:" and "not gratuitous violence" (Dominion Post 11/02/06 NZPA story). He also accepted Mr Taff's submissions on behalf of his clients that they both had unblemished records as parents and foster parents and had gone well beyond the call of duty in covering medical expenses for the boy for his health problems prior to the two smacking incidents. He also accepted that it was appropriate for Mr Taffs to submit that they should both be discharged without conviction. However, to the Eathorne’s shock, he inexplicably convicted them BOTH of assault and fined them BOTH (total $1,130).
Following the two brief and benign discipline sessions, the foster boy's behaviour showed a marked improvement and the vandalism, according to the couple, ceased. Judge Colin Doherty who issued the judgement with reference to the Crimes Act 1961, did not make any reference to a s. 59 defence to assault and the couple's lawyer Mr Doug Taffs did not refer them to this possible defence that was technically open to them. Neither Don nor Anne had heard about a s. 59 defence at the time and were manipulated, they believe, into pleading guilty of smacking the boy, which Anne had never denied, in a so-called “plea-bargain”. Again, it must be stressed that Anne had always been upfront and honest and acknowledged that she had smacked the boy for wilful vandalism to correct his wayward behaviour. They expected to be discharged without a conviction after agreeing to the plea bargain, but the Judge instead accepted their honest admission of smacking using reasonable force for correction as an admission of assault, which clearly it was not, if s. 59 had been properly applied. S. 59 provides a justification for the use of such ALL parents and foster parents, but was ignored by the Court.
If Bradford succeeds in getting her flawed bill into law, the s. 59 defence will be gone altogether for all parents and caregivers. Parents who use ANY form of reasonable force (including light smacking) for the purpose of correction, will be committing a criminal offences in law and will open themselves up to having formal charges laid against them by their own kids, neighbours or zealous CYFS social workers based on hearsay evidence, and possibly find themselves convicted of assault and child abuse.
Parents and especially foster parents have much to be concerned about over this bill. There are six cases similar to the above involving CYFS that have been notified to the Families Commission by a member of our organisation. The Society documented others in its written and oral submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee considering Bradford's bill last year.
ENDS
Saturday, 24 March 2007
24 March 2007 - Family Integrity #206 -- 13th Press Release ideas: Sold Out
Dear Friends,
Write to your MP!! Write, email, fax, phone....keep the pressure on as much as you can.
We've known Labour and Greens don't play by rules they stick to. So they plan to ram the Bill through under Urgency Wednesday 28 March, so it could all be over in a few days. And unless Labour has a meltdown, the core responsibility of parenting, correcting your children, will become a crime.
There are protest marches planned for Feilding, Christchurch, Wellington and Nelson. Rangiora and Masterton have both had successful marches. See http or http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events for details.
Here's a You Tube film of Larry Baldock explaining the Petition: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/YouTube
New You Tube shorts you want to check out plus press releases, etc: http://christiannews.co.nz/
Websites for information on protest Marches:
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292
This is the 13th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
Also check out this site for protest March details and to help your lobbying efforts: http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Selling Out
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they’ve done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won’t even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party’s steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford’s Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of “rights” determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.
“The best interests of the child” is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations…and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors’ offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford’s Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.
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
Write to your MP!! Write, email, fax, phone....keep the pressure on as much as you can.
We've known Labour and Greens don't play by rules they stick to. So they plan to ram the Bill through under Urgency Wednesday 28 March, so it could all be over in a few days. And unless Labour has a meltdown, the core responsibility of parenting, correcting your children, will become a crime.
There are protest marches planned for Feilding, Christchurch, Wellington and Nelson. Rangiora and Masterton have both had successful marches. See http or http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events for details.
Here's a You Tube film of Larry Baldock explaining the Petition: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/YouTube
New You Tube shorts you want to check out plus press releases, etc: http://christiannews.co.nz/
Websites for information on protest Marches:
http://smackingback.blogspot.com/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292
This is the 13th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock's and Sheryl Savill's petition: it's easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
Also check out this site for protest March details and to help your lobbying efforts: http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/s59/
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Selling Out
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they’ve done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won’t even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party’s steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford’s Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of “rights” determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.
“The best interests of the child” is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations…and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors’ offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford’s Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.
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
23 March 2007 - Society for the Promotion of Community Standards - Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill
23 March 2007 - Society for the Promotion of Community Standards - Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill
http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/bradford-grilled-on-anti-smacking-bill-and-is-found-wanting/
Bradford grilled on anti-smacking Bill: and is found wanting
Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 23rd, 2007
Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:39 am
Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards
Media Release - Political Comment: For Immediate Release…..
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz
Press Release
23 March 2007
Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill
OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP AND HER RESPONSES
QUESTIONS TO GREEN MP SUE BRADFORD
dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% - 90% of New Zealanders polled.
Question: 1
On the Agenda programme (see reference below) Sue Bradford MP stated:
“It’s actually illegal now to smack your child”.
Would Ms Bradford kindly clarify why this statement is correct and true in view of the justification granted in law (s. 59 of the Crimes Act 1961) for parents and those in the place of parents to use “reasonable force” with their children (including smacking) for the purposes of correction. S 59 is headed “domestic discipline” and does not refer to “smacking” specifically. Agend Link: http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Transcript17March2007/tabid/1217/Default.aspx
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
Assault on a child is a criminal offence under section 194 of the Crimes Act. Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides a justification defence to a charge brought under section 194. That justification is that “Every parent of a child … and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact. Whether smacking for the purpose of domestic discipline in any particular situation is lawful or unlawful is therefore determined by the particular circumstances. Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.
Question 2
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a person to use “reasonable force” to fend off a criminal assaillant in a case in which the victim (the one attacked) considers at the time of the attack, he/she was fending-off the assaillant in self-defence? (see s. 48 of Crimes Act).
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided the force used is reasonable in the circumstances that the person exercising the force finds themselves in.
Question 3
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a ship’s captain to use reasonable force to subdue dangerous behaviour by an adult passenger on his boat, if he believes that the actions constitute a threat to the safety of the boat and its passengers and crew? (see section 60 of Crimes Act).
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided that the captain believes the use of force is necessary in the circumstances.
Question 4.
Does Ms Bradford believe that it is unlawful for a parent to apply reasonable force against a child who wilfully acts to put himself/herself in harms way (e.g. lunges towards a hot stove element or into the path of an oncoming train in total disregard of the parent’s verbal instructions)?
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, I believe this is already a justification under common law, but have agreed to the insertion of a specific clarification provision in my Bill as reported by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, in response to assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it may not be so justified.
[We referred Ms Bradford to the Scoop article for her to carefully reflect upon pointing out that dishonesty and deceitfulness are not personal qualities the NZ public tolerate in MPs.]
SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO MS BRADFORD’S ANSWERS
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007
Dear Ms Fran Tyler
Please thank Ms Bradford for the answers she has supplied to the Society’s questions (1-4) re her bill.
However, having studied her answers, we are unable to comprehend how her position can be logically coherent within a legal framework. All our members feel the same way.
Please present to her a few short follow-up questions seeking urgent clarification. We would appreciate her prompt assistance.
Re Queston 1.
If as Ms Bradford stated on TV One’s Agenda programme: “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” - why has she in responsed to Q 1 by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” [Emphasis added]. We believe that it follows logically from the latter statement that some smacking is LEGAL; therefore the Agenda programme comment is inconsistent and misleading to say the least.
Questions: seeking clarification:
(i) How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and
(ii) what forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act?
(iii) Is it the smacking that is legal under current law or that which is illegal under current law that her bill intends to make illegal, or is it both forms?
(iv) Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful under current law for a parent or person in the place of a parent to use “reasonable force” in the context of domestic discipline, for the purpose of correcting a child who exhibits extreme defiance and/or disobedience despite a number of clearly defined warnings to desist from wrong behaviour (see section 59 of Crimes Act)?
(v) Is it the intention in her bill to prevent parents from correcting their children by using ANY actions that involve “reasonable force” in the circumstances? (vi) If so why, and why particularly has she sought to make illegal the use of ALL forms of force for correction carried out by the parent to achieve compliance from the disobediant/defiant child?
Re. Qs 2-3
(vi) In the light of Ms Bradford’s negative answers concerning the lawful use of “reasonable force” in self-defence (s. 48) and by ship’s captains (s. 60), which we accept as correct; why did she state on Agenda “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” when she knew full well that this is untruthful (s. s. 59) and has now done a U-turn on by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” (see above)? [Note the “reasonable force” defence provisions in s. 59, 60 and 48 serve the same purposes in protected those who use the force and those subject to the force].
Re Q. 4.
(vii) Ms Bradford agreed to amendments to her bill which she now admits she did not feel were necessary, but agreed to in order to alleviate some doubts by some submitters - as she puts it “assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it [use of reasonable force for removing kids from harms waty etc.] may not be so justified”. In the light of these concessions to submitters, why is she opposed to a clarification of s. 59 (the Borrows amendment) so that judges can point jury members to a clearer definition of “reasonable force” as it applies to actions taken by parents in corrective discipline on children?
Yours sincerely
David Lane
Secretary
Society for Promotion of community Standards Inc.
http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/bradford-grilled-on-anti-smacking-bill-and-is-found-wanting/
Bradford grilled on anti-smacking Bill: and is found wanting
Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 23rd, 2007
Friday, 23 March 2007, 11:39 am
Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards
Media Release - Political Comment: For Immediate Release…..
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz
Press Release
23 March 2007
Bradford Grilled on Anti-Smacking U-Turn Bill
OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP AND HER RESPONSES
QUESTIONS TO GREEN MP SUE BRADFORD
dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% - 90% of New Zealanders polled.
Question: 1
On the Agenda programme (see reference below) Sue Bradford MP stated:
“It’s actually illegal now to smack your child”.
Would Ms Bradford kindly clarify why this statement is correct and true in view of the justification granted in law (s. 59 of the Crimes Act 1961) for parents and those in the place of parents to use “reasonable force” with their children (including smacking) for the purposes of correction. S 59 is headed “domestic discipline” and does not refer to “smacking” specifically. Agend Link: http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Transcript17March2007/tabid/1217/Default.aspx
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
Assault on a child is a criminal offence under section 194 of the Crimes Act. Section 59 of the Crimes Act provides a justification defence to a charge brought under section 194. That justification is that “Every parent of a child … and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact. Whether smacking for the purpose of domestic discipline in any particular situation is lawful or unlawful is therefore determined by the particular circumstances. Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.
Question 2
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a person to use “reasonable force” to fend off a criminal assaillant in a case in which the victim (the one attacked) considers at the time of the attack, he/she was fending-off the assaillant in self-defence? (see s. 48 of Crimes Act).
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided the force used is reasonable in the circumstances that the person exercising the force finds themselves in.
Question 3
Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful for a ship’s captain to use reasonable force to subdue dangerous behaviour by an adult passenger on his boat, if he believes that the actions constitute a threat to the safety of the boat and its passengers and crew? (see section 60 of Crimes Act).
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, provided that the captain believes the use of force is necessary in the circumstances.
Question 4.
Does Ms Bradford believe that it is unlawful for a parent to apply reasonable force against a child who wilfully acts to put himself/herself in harms way (e.g. lunges towards a hot stove element or into the path of an oncoming train in total disregard of the parent’s verbal instructions)?
BRADFORD’S ANSWER
No, I believe this is already a justification under common law, but have agreed to the insertion of a specific clarification provision in my Bill as reported by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, in response to assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it may not be so justified.
[We referred Ms Bradford to the Scoop article for her to carefully reflect upon pointing out that dishonesty and deceitfulness are not personal qualities the NZ public tolerate in MPs.]
SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO MS BRADFORD’S ANSWERS
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007
Dear Ms Fran Tyler
Please thank Ms Bradford for the answers she has supplied to the Society’s questions (1-4) re her bill.
However, having studied her answers, we are unable to comprehend how her position can be logically coherent within a legal framework. All our members feel the same way.
Please present to her a few short follow-up questions seeking urgent clarification. We would appreciate her prompt assistance.
Re Queston 1.
If as Ms Bradford stated on TV One’s Agenda programme: “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” - why has she in responsed to Q 1 by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” [Emphasis added]. We believe that it follows logically from the latter statement that some smacking is LEGAL; therefore the Agenda programme comment is inconsistent and misleading to say the least.
Questions: seeking clarification:
(i) How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and
(ii) what forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act?
(iii) Is it the smacking that is legal under current law or that which is illegal under current law that her bill intends to make illegal, or is it both forms?
(iv) Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful under current law for a parent or person in the place of a parent to use “reasonable force” in the context of domestic discipline, for the purpose of correcting a child who exhibits extreme defiance and/or disobedience despite a number of clearly defined warnings to desist from wrong behaviour (see section 59 of Crimes Act)?
(v) Is it the intention in her bill to prevent parents from correcting their children by using ANY actions that involve “reasonable force” in the circumstances? (vi) If so why, and why particularly has she sought to make illegal the use of ALL forms of force for correction carried out by the parent to achieve compliance from the disobediant/defiant child?
Re. Qs 2-3
(vi) In the light of Ms Bradford’s negative answers concerning the lawful use of “reasonable force” in self-defence (s. 48) and by ship’s captains (s. 60), which we accept as correct; why did she state on Agenda “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” when she knew full well that this is untruthful (s. s. 59) and has now done a U-turn on by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” (see above)? [Note the “reasonable force” defence provisions in s. 59, 60 and 48 serve the same purposes in protected those who use the force and those subject to the force].
Re Q. 4.
(vii) Ms Bradford agreed to amendments to her bill which she now admits she did not feel were necessary, but agreed to in order to alleviate some doubts by some submitters - as she puts it “assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it [use of reasonable force for removing kids from harms waty etc.] may not be so justified”. In the light of these concessions to submitters, why is she opposed to a clarification of s. 59 (the Borrows amendment) so that judges can point jury members to a clearer definition of “reasonable force” as it applies to actions taken by parents in corrective discipline on children?
Yours sincerely
David Lane
Secretary
Society for Promotion of community Standards Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
