12 March 2007 - Family Integrity #192 -- Ninth Press Release Ideas

12 March 2007 - Family Integrity #192 -- Ninth Press Release Ideas

Dear Friends,

This is the 9th message sent as a press release and to some MPs we need to lobby (for that list, see: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls).

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

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

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

Regards,

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

Our Home....Our Castle



Unenforcable Due to Lack of Definitions

The “Home Invasion” Bill of Sue Bradford’s to rewrite Section 59 is so thoroughly subversive of traditional, common-sense parenting, it will be impossible to enforce. Smacking is not defined. Bradford constantly equates it with hitting and beating, but this Bill neither affirms nor denies her sentiments on that. Historically smacking has been lumped into the category of “reasonable force” in Section 59, and this has been Bradford's argument: that even severe hitting and beating are constantly hiding behind the phrase "reasonable force". But does Bradford’s rewrite of Section 59 eliminate the phrase? No! Her nutty Bill actually says, "reasonable force" is justified when “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.” If Bradford's rhetoric has any credibility at all, then also "severe hitting and beating" are justified when done “incidental to good care and parenting”.

Bradford's Bill also fails to define what actually constitutes “the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.” Most folks would agree that it covers things like correction. But "correction" is the one thing Bradford has been careful to specifically forbid in this bill. “Correction”, however, is not defined either, so it will become a lawyers’ feeding frenzy to get as many of these cases to court to hammer out definitions, damaging another child and another family with every case.

This Bill's purpose is to criminalise parents for correcting their children, a core duty of parenting. It has absolutely nothing to offer abused children in dysfunctional families. Dump the Bill.