Family Integrity #183 -- Fifth Press Release Ideas

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

Dear Friends,

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

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

Please Enlighten Us, Sue

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

Worth it to whom, Sue?

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

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

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