Search and Destroy – Down Syndrome
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00365.htm
Monday, 30 April 2007, 10:49 am
Press Release: Right To Life New Zealand Inc
29 April 2007
Search and Destroy – Down Syndrome
Right to Life deplores the decision of the Minister of Health the Hon Pete Hodgson to request the National Screening Unit to advise him on how to implement a national screening programme for Down syndrome. A programme for screening all pregnant women for Down syndrome is a search and destroy mission. Those women who tested positive for Down syndrome would be encouraged to abort their child. The sole purpose of this programme would be to define who shall live and who shall die. This is unjust discrimination against the disabled. Every child at conception is endowed by its creator with an inalienable right to life. A child does not lose its right to life because it has a genetic condition.
The Minister of Health has a responsibility to protect life and to promote the health of the community; his action reveals that the government does not welcome the birth of children with Down syndrome. Its response is to sanction and fund the killing of children with Down syndrome; this is eugenics which promotes a humanistic quality of life ethic which decrees that only the perfect have a right to life. The Minister in this action is promoting a culture of death. The right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation; it is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it, its universal denial would fail to recognise the dignity of man.
There are many people who are born with Down syndrome who have a good quality of life and who make a valuable contribution to the family and society.
Right to Life welcomes the Minister's decision to discontinue risky diagnostic tests that have been leading to the miscarriage of dozens of unborn children.
This proposed national screening programme should be seen in the context of the public debate on the government supported repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act that would outlaw the smacking of children. The Prime Minister has said that her government wishes to give a clear message to the community that violence against children is unacceptable. Violence against children begins in the womb. The government is giving the message that they support the killing of unborn children, including those with Down syndrome, but that after birth you may not smack them.
Monday, 30 April 2007
30 April 2007 - nzherald - Survey may force Maori Party shift on Bradford bill
Survey may force Maori Party shift on Bradford bill
http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Monday April 30, 2007The fate of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill appears to rest with the Maori Party caucus which will discuss it tomorrow in the light of a poll showing overwhelming 80 per cent opposition to it by Maori.
The party has backed the bill but the resounding Maori opposition may create pressure to back a proposal by National Party leader John Key to allow "minor and inconsequential" smacking.
It is believed to have been a consistent topic of concern raised at the consultation hui the four Maori Party MPs have held up and down New Zealand during the three-week recess.
If the Maori Party decides to back the Key amendment, it would have the numbers to pass.
But Sue Bradford has said she would withdraw it in those circumstances.
The bill, which returns to the House on Wednesday, outlaws the use of physical force against children for purposes of correction. It allows it to prevent a child from engaging in harmful, disruptive, illegal or offensive behaviour.
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia indicated at the weekend that the party would continue to support the bill, despite 80 per cent of Maori in the Marae Digipoll survey opposing it. But she could not be contacted last night to discuss the Key proposal.
She said at the weekend the present law allowed a legal defence against abuse. "We will not support abuse. We have got to show leadership. If we are looking at all the statistics we have got the worst statistics in the OECD. "
Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia was also committed to supporting it, saying he saw the "other side" of smacking. "I visit the refuges.
"We know that we have rampant violence in some areas for a whole host of reasons within our families. We must address that."
Mr Key said he had spoken to Mrs Turia on Saturday night about his proposal and said she had a very clear understanding of the law. She would discuss it with the caucus tomorrow.
"We can't do it without the Maori Party," Mr Key told the Herald.
He believes the Maori Party might be more tempted to back the amendment since the Marae poll.
He also said if Sue Bradford's bill passed and it was challenged in a citizens-initiated referendum at next year's election he would be inclined to change the law to reflect his own proposal.
Former United Future MP Larry Baldock said last night that he had had 163,150 signatures since March 1.
That makes it likely he will get the requisite 300,000 (10 per cent of registered electors) by March 1 next year in order to get a referendum.
"They had better prepare themselves for a referendum - and the bill hasn't passed yet." The petition asks:
* Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
* Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse?
Mr Baldock said he had tried to discourage his own associates from attending the Destiny Church rally at Parliament on Wednesday, when the bill returns for further debate.
"This is not a church issue. This has never been just a bunch of Christians who want to retain the right to smack their kids. It is 80 per cent of New Zealanders."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz
Monday April 30, 2007The fate of Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill appears to rest with the Maori Party caucus which will discuss it tomorrow in the light of a poll showing overwhelming 80 per cent opposition to it by Maori.
The party has backed the bill but the resounding Maori opposition may create pressure to back a proposal by National Party leader John Key to allow "minor and inconsequential" smacking.
It is believed to have been a consistent topic of concern raised at the consultation hui the four Maori Party MPs have held up and down New Zealand during the three-week recess.
If the Maori Party decides to back the Key amendment, it would have the numbers to pass.
But Sue Bradford has said she would withdraw it in those circumstances.
The bill, which returns to the House on Wednesday, outlaws the use of physical force against children for purposes of correction. It allows it to prevent a child from engaging in harmful, disruptive, illegal or offensive behaviour.
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia indicated at the weekend that the party would continue to support the bill, despite 80 per cent of Maori in the Marae Digipoll survey opposing it. But she could not be contacted last night to discuss the Key proposal.
She said at the weekend the present law allowed a legal defence against abuse. "We will not support abuse. We have got to show leadership. If we are looking at all the statistics we have got the worst statistics in the OECD. "
Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia was also committed to supporting it, saying he saw the "other side" of smacking. "I visit the refuges.
"We know that we have rampant violence in some areas for a whole host of reasons within our families. We must address that."
Mr Key said he had spoken to Mrs Turia on Saturday night about his proposal and said she had a very clear understanding of the law. She would discuss it with the caucus tomorrow.
"We can't do it without the Maori Party," Mr Key told the Herald.
He believes the Maori Party might be more tempted to back the amendment since the Marae poll.
He also said if Sue Bradford's bill passed and it was challenged in a citizens-initiated referendum at next year's election he would be inclined to change the law to reflect his own proposal.
Former United Future MP Larry Baldock said last night that he had had 163,150 signatures since March 1.
That makes it likely he will get the requisite 300,000 (10 per cent of registered electors) by March 1 next year in order to get a referendum.
"They had better prepare themselves for a referendum - and the bill hasn't passed yet." The petition asks:
* Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
* Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse?
Mr Baldock said he had tried to discourage his own associates from attending the Destiny Church rally at Parliament on Wednesday, when the bill returns for further debate.
"This is not a church issue. This has never been just a bunch of Christians who want to retain the right to smack their kids. It is 80 per cent of New Zealanders."
Dr Bob Larzelere in New Zealand
MONDAY 30th April 2007.
8.10 - 8.30am Radio Live
10.00 - 11.00am Newstalk ZB with Leighton Smith
1.00 - 2.00pm Radio Live with Willie Jackson and John Tamihere
7.00 - 7.30pm Campbell Live TV3 (debating with the Children's Commissioner)
There is No Sound Scientific Evidence to Support Smacking Bans"
- Dr Larzelere -
TUESDAY
More FM Christchurch Breakfast Show
9.10 - 9.30am Radio 531 PI
10.00 - 11.00am Radio Rhema
11.15 - 11.30am Newstalk ZB Christchurch
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY
Meetings with politicians from United Future, Maori party, National, NZ
First and Sue Bradford.
Also the Families Commissioner.
8.10 - 8.30am Radio Live
10.00 - 11.00am Newstalk ZB with Leighton Smith
1.00 - 2.00pm Radio Live with Willie Jackson and John Tamihere
7.00 - 7.30pm Campbell Live TV3 (debating with the Children's Commissioner)
There is No Sound Scientific Evidence to Support Smacking Bans"
- Dr Larzelere -
TUESDAY
More FM Christchurch Breakfast Show
9.10 - 9.30am Radio 531 PI
10.00 - 11.00am Radio Rhema
11.15 - 11.30am Newstalk ZB Christchurch
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY
Meetings with politicians from United Future, Maori party, National, NZ
First and Sue Bradford.
Also the Families Commissioner.
kiwiblog - Letter from John Key to Party Leaders on Smacking
Letter from John Key to Party Leaders on Smacking
from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is "minor and inconsequential", while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand's terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
If an MP votes against that amendment, it will make it pretty clear they are voting to ban correctional smacking.
from http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is "minor and inconsequential", while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand's terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
If an MP votes against that amendment, it will make it pretty clear they are voting to ban correctional smacking.
26 April 2007 - By Audrey Young - Labour left between a rock and a hard place
Audrey Young: Labour left between a rock and a hard place
5:00AM Thursday April 26, 2007 By Audrey Young
National leader John Key played pragmatic politics this week and Green MP Sue Bradford played principled politics.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=164
In a sense, both were playing to their parties' strengths.
In a sense, neither can be condemned for that.
It leaves the anti-smacking bill exactly where it was: legislation that will outlaw the use of physical force to teach children a lesson or for "correction", but with two different predictions about how the law will be applied.
Supporters are certain the police will not prosecute parents who smack their children lightly - just as the police don't press assault charges now for such action.
Opponents caution that a new law that specifically bans force to discipline children will invite prosecutions for a light smack.
Key offered a significant compromise this week on his party's previous position on the anti-smacking bill.
He accepted the bill's primary function - to ban the use of force against children for correction on one proviso that it explicitly allow for "minor and inconsequential" smacks in the course of parenting.
What he proposed this week was no more than the assurances given by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Bradford that parents who smack lightly would not be criminalised.
Instead of trusting their predictions of police interpretation, Key wanted the proviso written into the law.
While there is an inherent contradiction in what he offered - banning physical punishment but allowing it a little bit - it is no more of a contradiction than that already existing in Bradford's bill.
Bradford rejected the compromise because it was inconsistent with the principle driving the bill.
She wants to put children on the same footing as adults and to remove the notion that it is excusable to use any form of violence on them - children - other than a few exceptions outlined in the bill such as to save them or others from harm.
To define in law what level of violence was allowed against children would be like trying to define what level of violence was allowed by men against women.
And anyway, Key's compromise is a watered-down version of the amendments proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, which are set to be voted down next Wednesday.
Bradford is a mother of five. She has said from the first reading that it was not her intention to criminalise ordinary parents, that her target was those who hit or beat their children seriously.
The difficulty is that her intentions conflict with the actual bill.
She may not want police to prosecute smackers but the bill leaves it open to just such a response.
It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases.
It would have been a lot plainer if Bradford had said something like "this bill outlaws physical discipline against children and, even though I don't want the police to prosecute smackers, they may do so because smacking is violence on a milder scale".
But if she had promoted a hard line, or a bright line in the law, she would have kissed goodbye to Labour's bloc support and relegated it back to a conscience issue, which is probably what it should have been.
Key's failure this week will not alter the likelihood of the bill passing narrowly. It would have given Parliament the satisfaction of having broad-based support for such a contentious law.
Key will try to get as much mileage as he can from here.
He will now approach Labour which will almost certainly dismiss it as a stunt.
Any acceptance by Labour would also prompt Bradford to withdraw the bill (which might provide private relief to Labour if it is haemorrhaging support from women over its decision to back the bill).
Key, whether genuine or not - and Bradford believes he is - has manoeuvred himself into an enviable position on this issue.
If Labour agrees to his amendment, he gets the credit for showing some leadership on the issue. If it tells him to get lost, it rejects what is seen as a sensible way through a difficult issue.
Even if he fails, he wins.
5:00AM Thursday April 26, 2007 By Audrey Young
National leader John Key played pragmatic politics this week and Green MP Sue Bradford played principled politics.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=164
In a sense, both were playing to their parties' strengths.
In a sense, neither can be condemned for that.
It leaves the anti-smacking bill exactly where it was: legislation that will outlaw the use of physical force to teach children a lesson or for "correction", but with two different predictions about how the law will be applied.
Supporters are certain the police will not prosecute parents who smack their children lightly - just as the police don't press assault charges now for such action.
Opponents caution that a new law that specifically bans force to discipline children will invite prosecutions for a light smack.
Key offered a significant compromise this week on his party's previous position on the anti-smacking bill.
He accepted the bill's primary function - to ban the use of force against children for correction on one proviso that it explicitly allow for "minor and inconsequential" smacks in the course of parenting.
What he proposed this week was no more than the assurances given by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Bradford that parents who smack lightly would not be criminalised.
Instead of trusting their predictions of police interpretation, Key wanted the proviso written into the law.
While there is an inherent contradiction in what he offered - banning physical punishment but allowing it a little bit - it is no more of a contradiction than that already existing in Bradford's bill.
Bradford rejected the compromise because it was inconsistent with the principle driving the bill.
She wants to put children on the same footing as adults and to remove the notion that it is excusable to use any form of violence on them - children - other than a few exceptions outlined in the bill such as to save them or others from harm.
To define in law what level of violence was allowed against children would be like trying to define what level of violence was allowed by men against women.
And anyway, Key's compromise is a watered-down version of the amendments proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, which are set to be voted down next Wednesday.
Bradford is a mother of five. She has said from the first reading that it was not her intention to criminalise ordinary parents, that her target was those who hit or beat their children seriously.
The difficulty is that her intentions conflict with the actual bill.
She may not want police to prosecute smackers but the bill leaves it open to just such a response.
It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases.
It would have been a lot plainer if Bradford had said something like "this bill outlaws physical discipline against children and, even though I don't want the police to prosecute smackers, they may do so because smacking is violence on a milder scale".
But if she had promoted a hard line, or a bright line in the law, she would have kissed goodbye to Labour's bloc support and relegated it back to a conscience issue, which is probably what it should have been.
Key's failure this week will not alter the likelihood of the bill passing narrowly. It would have given Parliament the satisfaction of having broad-based support for such a contentious law.
Key will try to get as much mileage as he can from here.
He will now approach Labour which will almost certainly dismiss it as a stunt.
Any acceptance by Labour would also prompt Bradford to withdraw the bill (which might provide private relief to Labour if it is haemorrhaging support from women over its decision to back the bill).
Key, whether genuine or not - and Bradford believes he is - has manoeuvred himself into an enviable position on this issue.
If Labour agrees to his amendment, he gets the credit for showing some leadership on the issue. If it tells him to get lost, it rejects what is seen as a sensible way through a difficult issue.
Even if he fails, he wins.
27 April 2007 - SPCS - Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
http://www.spcs.org.nz 27 April 2007
Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
The Society is very concerned that Ms Bradford appears unable or unwilling to answer key questions put to her regarding her unpopular private members bill that is opposed by over 80% of New Zealanders.
In an Open Letter to her dated 23 March (copied below) the Society sought urgent clarification on four matters relating to her contradictory public pronouncements on her bill that seeks to remove the defence of "reasonable force" for "correction" (that can be used currently by a parent against a charge of assault on a child), from Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). The explanation given by the Green Party for her lack of response is that she is "very busy". Green Party worker, Ms Fran Tyler, has undertaken to give her the hurry up.
Tens of thousands of concerned parents who may face charges of criminal assault for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of corrective discipline, should Bradford's flawed anti-family bill pass into law, await answers to the important questions the Society has raised. Bradford says the aim of her bill is to make it illegal for any parent or person in the place of parent to use any "force" for the purpose of "correction". However, the bill does not specifically define what constitutes "force".
On the other hand, she has agreed to retain the defence of "reasonable force", but only for parents who she claims might face a charge of criminal assault for removing a child from harm's way etc. But she is adamant that this defence cannot be used if the action is undertaken with the intent or purpose of "correction": in whole or in "part". In effect she has made an ass of the law. Current law provides a clear justification for the use of "reasonable force" by parents for correction. Bradford is seeking to make that which is perfectly legal, illegal, and thereby she undermines the authority of good and loving parents.
OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP
RE: Sue Bradford's Private Members Bill dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% - 90% of New Zealanders polled.
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.
[See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00301.htm]. 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:
1.. How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and b.. What forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act? c.. 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? d.. 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)? e.. 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. Questions 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 Queston 4
(vi) 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.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz
ENDS
How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007 http://www.spcs.org.nz
If Green MP Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking bill' is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for "correction" purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying "force" for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to "time-out" or "naughty-mat" zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of "correction". The intention of Bradford's flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for "correction" by parents or those in the place of parents.
Sadly, the New Zealand public has too often seen the ugly face of badly applied law. Some cases have involved the domestic discipline of children (the case of the criminalising [for assault] of foster parents Don and Anne Eathorne through the actions of CYFS) and others involving public facilities where children are cared for by dedicated staff (The notorious Christchurch Creche case). An example of the latter, is the case involving a creche worker – Judith Anne Hende - who was wrongfully convicted and sentenced in a District Court for an assault on a child in her care and charged with wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefying a child (W) under her care. In 1995 the guilty verdict for stupefying was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the conviction was quashed. The Court directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. Hende had been fined $1,000 by the District Court on the charge of stupefying a child.
More important to the debate over Bradford's anti-family bill is the fact that when the Court of Appeal dealt with Hende's conviction for assault, its ruling was that it be set aside and "the appellant be discharged without conviction".
The Queen v Judith Anne Hende (CA196/95)
Coram: Eichelbaum CJ, Hardie Boys J and Henry J
Hearing 24 July 1995 (at Auckland)
On 18 September 1995 Judge Eichelbaum CJ issued the Court of Appeal's Judgment that in part dealt with the assault charge against Ms Judith Anne Hende and he "discharged [her] without conviction". Hende, the appellant, was a licensee of a creche and had appealed against her conviction and sentence for assault and other matters, by a District Court. The assault charge was laid by the police under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act. It was alleged that she assaulted a child (S) under the age of 14.
Eichelbaum CJ stated in his Judgment:
"The particulars alleged were 'hitting child when [the child was] going berserk' … The only prosecution evidence of the assault was in the depositions of two witnesses who were unavailable to give evidence at the trial." [Permission was granted by the Judge for the depositions to be read at the trial.]… "The second witness (the sister of the first) said she saw the appellant smack the child twice with her open hand on his bottom, two smacks one after the other on the same occasion. Cross-examined briefly, she agreed her memory about what exactly happened was a bit hazy, and that the smacks would not have hurt."
"Given, however, that as to the nature of the assault the Court had only the bare words quoted [by the witness], there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine [of $250] imposed"
"…the appellant has been through a seven day trial and two hearings before this Court, and the events are now three to four years old"
This tragic case highlights how police, even after presumably applying careful discretion (we doubt it in this case), will readily lay charges for a mere "technical assault" for incidents involving a mere "pat on the bottom", and allow such trivial matters to be taken to Court leading to the stigma of a conviction and a fine being imposed on an innocent child care worker. Police merely do their job when Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and similar agencies – the so-called "experts" in child advocacy – fail to apply commonsense, are consumed by their own misguided zeal and ideological bias and are goaded into action by parents with their own agendas. The Police regularly hand the troublesome matter from the basket labelled "Too Hard" – to the Courts – relying on the legal "experts" to decide. Police are too busy chasing serial rapists, child molesters, bank heist professionals, and those committing aggravated robberies and sexual assaults, to be bothered too much by cases involving children being patted on the bottom.
It is staggering and hard to believe that such trivial and ridiculous cases as those involving some of the charges laid against Judith Hende, end up in Court even without Ms Bradford's bill becoming law! When it does become law – God forbid - the gloves are off! Agencies like CYFS will pursue all manner of trivial prosecutions against decent parents who seek to administer corrective discipline to their children for serious wrongdoing. They will use the police to hide behind. Bradford's absurd and naïve claim that police discretion is the only filter needed to ensure that parents will not be criminalised for trivial cases involving light smacking etc. deserves the cynical response "Yeah Right!".
It is noteworthy that on the charges of "ill-treatment" for which Hende was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to 200 hours community work, the appeal was allowed on a number of counts and a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal. A number of the key verdicts were therefore ordered to be set aside and a new trial was ordered.
The New Zealand public have overwhelmingly indicated via numerous opinion polls that they strongly oppose the repeal of section 59 and oppose Bradford's "anti-smacking bill" – one that even if passed, will make no difference to rectifying the serious problem of child abuse in this country. The SPCS wants the serious problem of child abuse properly investigated by the government and the real root causes addressed urgently.
http://www.spcs.org.nz 27 April 2007
Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
The Society is very concerned that Ms Bradford appears unable or unwilling to answer key questions put to her regarding her unpopular private members bill that is opposed by over 80% of New Zealanders.
In an Open Letter to her dated 23 March (copied below) the Society sought urgent clarification on four matters relating to her contradictory public pronouncements on her bill that seeks to remove the defence of "reasonable force" for "correction" (that can be used currently by a parent against a charge of assault on a child), from Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). The explanation given by the Green Party for her lack of response is that she is "very busy". Green Party worker, Ms Fran Tyler, has undertaken to give her the hurry up.
Tens of thousands of concerned parents who may face charges of criminal assault for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of corrective discipline, should Bradford's flawed anti-family bill pass into law, await answers to the important questions the Society has raised. Bradford says the aim of her bill is to make it illegal for any parent or person in the place of parent to use any "force" for the purpose of "correction". However, the bill does not specifically define what constitutes "force".
On the other hand, she has agreed to retain the defence of "reasonable force", but only for parents who she claims might face a charge of criminal assault for removing a child from harm's way etc. But she is adamant that this defence cannot be used if the action is undertaken with the intent or purpose of "correction": in whole or in "part". In effect she has made an ass of the law. Current law provides a clear justification for the use of "reasonable force" by parents for correction. Bradford is seeking to make that which is perfectly legal, illegal, and thereby she undermines the authority of good and loving parents.
OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP
RE: Sue Bradford's Private Members Bill dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% - 90% of New Zealanders polled.
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.
[See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00301.htm]. 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:
1.. How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and b.. What forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act? c.. 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? d.. 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)? e.. 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. Questions 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 Queston 4
(vi) 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.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
http://www.spcs.org.nz
ENDS
How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking' Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007 http://www.spcs.org.nz
If Green MP Sue Bradford's 'anti-smacking bill' is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for "correction" purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying "force" for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to "time-out" or "naughty-mat" zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of "correction". The intention of Bradford's flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for "correction" by parents or those in the place of parents.
Sadly, the New Zealand public has too often seen the ugly face of badly applied law. Some cases have involved the domestic discipline of children (the case of the criminalising [for assault] of foster parents Don and Anne Eathorne through the actions of CYFS) and others involving public facilities where children are cared for by dedicated staff (The notorious Christchurch Creche case). An example of the latter, is the case involving a creche worker – Judith Anne Hende - who was wrongfully convicted and sentenced in a District Court for an assault on a child in her care and charged with wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefying a child (W) under her care. In 1995 the guilty verdict for stupefying was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the conviction was quashed. The Court directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. Hende had been fined $1,000 by the District Court on the charge of stupefying a child.
More important to the debate over Bradford's anti-family bill is the fact that when the Court of Appeal dealt with Hende's conviction for assault, its ruling was that it be set aside and "the appellant be discharged without conviction".
The Queen v Judith Anne Hende (CA196/95)
Coram: Eichelbaum CJ, Hardie Boys J and Henry J
Hearing 24 July 1995 (at Auckland)
On 18 September 1995 Judge Eichelbaum CJ issued the Court of Appeal's Judgment that in part dealt with the assault charge against Ms Judith Anne Hende and he "discharged [her] without conviction". Hende, the appellant, was a licensee of a creche and had appealed against her conviction and sentence for assault and other matters, by a District Court. The assault charge was laid by the police under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act. It was alleged that she assaulted a child (S) under the age of 14.
Eichelbaum CJ stated in his Judgment:
"The particulars alleged were 'hitting child when [the child was] going berserk' … The only prosecution evidence of the assault was in the depositions of two witnesses who were unavailable to give evidence at the trial." [Permission was granted by the Judge for the depositions to be read at the trial.]… "The second witness (the sister of the first) said she saw the appellant smack the child twice with her open hand on his bottom, two smacks one after the other on the same occasion. Cross-examined briefly, she agreed her memory about what exactly happened was a bit hazy, and that the smacks would not have hurt."
"Given, however, that as to the nature of the assault the Court had only the bare words quoted [by the witness], there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine [of $250] imposed"
"…the appellant has been through a seven day trial and two hearings before this Court, and the events are now three to four years old"
This tragic case highlights how police, even after presumably applying careful discretion (we doubt it in this case), will readily lay charges for a mere "technical assault" for incidents involving a mere "pat on the bottom", and allow such trivial matters to be taken to Court leading to the stigma of a conviction and a fine being imposed on an innocent child care worker. Police merely do their job when Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and similar agencies – the so-called "experts" in child advocacy – fail to apply commonsense, are consumed by their own misguided zeal and ideological bias and are goaded into action by parents with their own agendas. The Police regularly hand the troublesome matter from the basket labelled "Too Hard" – to the Courts – relying on the legal "experts" to decide. Police are too busy chasing serial rapists, child molesters, bank heist professionals, and those committing aggravated robberies and sexual assaults, to be bothered too much by cases involving children being patted on the bottom.
It is staggering and hard to believe that such trivial and ridiculous cases as those involving some of the charges laid against Judith Hende, end up in Court even without Ms Bradford's bill becoming law! When it does become law – God forbid - the gloves are off! Agencies like CYFS will pursue all manner of trivial prosecutions against decent parents who seek to administer corrective discipline to their children for serious wrongdoing. They will use the police to hide behind. Bradford's absurd and naïve claim that police discretion is the only filter needed to ensure that parents will not be criminalised for trivial cases involving light smacking etc. deserves the cynical response "Yeah Right!".
It is noteworthy that on the charges of "ill-treatment" for which Hende was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to 200 hours community work, the appeal was allowed on a number of counts and a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal. A number of the key verdicts were therefore ordered to be set aside and a new trial was ordered.
The New Zealand public have overwhelmingly indicated via numerous opinion polls that they strongly oppose the repeal of section 59 and oppose Bradford's "anti-smacking bill" – one that even if passed, will make no difference to rectifying the serious problem of child abuse in this country. The SPCS wants the serious problem of child abuse properly investigated by the government and the real root causes addressed urgently.
Friday, 27 April 2007
27 April 2007 - Family Integrity #234
The following came from David Farrars blog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/) 26 April:
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
This is interesting political sleight of hand. It is what Bradford has been doing all along.
Good on ya, Key! He wants to dump the parts of Bradford's Bill that will criminalise parents for correcting their children: subsections 59(2) and 59(3), which read: "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1)."
And he is going to replace them with the clause at the bottom that justifies "lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties" as long as the smack is "minor and inconsequential" and then he gives a nod to Section 3.
Now, Section 3 is in the version of Bradford's Bill that is currently before Parliament. It says, "3 Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction." So the Act says it is meant to abolish the use of parental force for correction. But if subsections 59(2) and 59(3) get removed and replaced by Key's amendment, there will be noting actually written in the statute books that abolishes the use of parental force for correction, even though there is something in the Act which says that's why it's there!!
And Key's amendment doesn't ban the use of implements as Borrow's amendment does. Please note also that Bradford's Bill as it is does not ban the use of implements either.
This amendment by Key, if adopted, will have the effect of more closely maintaining the status quo. Bradford's bill as it is has the effect of widening the use of parental force with children quite a bit more than the present Section 59 obviously allows. That is, Bradford's Bill appears to extend the justifiable use of force with children beyond what the original Section 59 does, except that it criminalises correction. Key's amendment will leave Bradford's extensions to the use of force in place and also remove the criminalising of correction.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
This is interesting political sleight of hand. It is what Bradford has been doing all along.
Good on ya, Key! He wants to dump the parts of Bradford's Bill that will criminalise parents for correcting their children: subsections 59(2) and 59(3), which read: "(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1)."
And he is going to replace them with the clause at the bottom that justifies "lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties" as long as the smack is "minor and inconsequential" and then he gives a nod to Section 3.
Now, Section 3 is in the version of Bradford's Bill that is currently before Parliament. It says, "3 Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction." So the Act says it is meant to abolish the use of parental force for correction. But if subsections 59(2) and 59(3) get removed and replaced by Key's amendment, there will be noting actually written in the statute books that abolishes the use of parental force for correction, even though there is something in the Act which says that's why it's there!!
And Key's amendment doesn't ban the use of implements as Borrow's amendment does. Please note also that Bradford's Bill as it is does not ban the use of implements either.
This amendment by Key, if adopted, will have the effect of more closely maintaining the status quo. Bradford's bill as it is has the effect of widening the use of parental force with children quite a bit more than the present Section 59 obviously allows. That is, Bradford's Bill appears to extend the justifiable use of force with children beyond what the original Section 59 does, except that it criminalises correction. Key's amendment will leave Bradford's extensions to the use of force in place and also remove the criminalising of correction.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
26 April 2007 - Family Integrity #233 -- No smack compromise for Key and Bradford
No smack compromise for Key and Bradford
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4038067a11.html
National Party leader John Key and the Green's Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking.
They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as "genuine and friendly" but did not find a way to overcome National's strong opposition to the bill.
The bill's future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates.
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows "reasonable force" to be used to correct children.
Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence.
Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children.
Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.
It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different.
Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child.
Mr Key initiated today's meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill.
"I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something," she said.
Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial "but there was no outcome".
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4038067a11.html
National Party leader John Key and the Green's Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking.
They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as "genuine and friendly" but did not find a way to overcome National's strong opposition to the bill.
The bill's future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates.
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows "reasonable force" to be used to correct children.
Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence.
Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children.
Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.
It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different.
Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child.
Mr Key initiated today's meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill.
"I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something," she said.
Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial "but there was no outcome".
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
24 April 2007 - familyvalues - 'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00294.htm
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 9:33 am
Press Release: http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm
http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, 'we do so under threat.'
In response to Mr Keast's comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: "The law is the law.' Now lets take the anti smacking bill.
If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, 'the law is the law!' Government's planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week - Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
Event details can be viewed on http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
ENDS
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 9:33 am
Press Release: http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm
http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, 'we do so under threat.'
In response to Mr Keast's comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: "The law is the law.' Now lets take the anti smacking bill.
If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, 'the law is the law!' Government's planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week - Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
Event details can be viewed on http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
ENDS
24 April 2007 - Family Integrity #232 - MASS GATHERING @ PARLIAMENT TO OPPOSE ANTI SMACKING BILL
Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm
www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, 'we do so under threat.' In response to Mr Keast's comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: "The law is the law.' Now lets take the anti smacking bill. If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, 'the law is the law!' Government's planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week - Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
Event details can be viewed on www.familyvalues.net.nz
Media Enquiries:
Janine Cardno
Mobile: (027) 479-9191
Email: info@familyvalues.net.nz
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm
www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007
'The real school bully isn't in the schoolyard'
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, 'we do so under threat.' In response to Mr Keast's comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: "The law is the law.' Now lets take the anti smacking bill. If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, 'the law is the law!' Government's planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week - Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
Event details can be viewed on www.familyvalues.net.nz
Media Enquiries:
Janine Cardno
Mobile: (027) 479-9191
Email: info@familyvalues.net.nz
Monday, 23 April 2007
21 April 2007 - Family Integrity - Summary of Section 59 and what we can continue to be doing.
21 April 2007 - Family Integrity - Summary of Section 59 and what we can continue to be doing.
Greetings all,
The latest on Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961
Please follow through on reading the links as there is a lot of good information in these links below.
1. Questions for Key & Bradford: Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered "One" through "Five"............ Click on this link for more info including contact details: details: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/20-april-2007-family-integrity-226.html
John Key says: Let me know your thoughts on the anti-smacking bill at: http://www.johnkey.co.nz
2. Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases: Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.
The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the riding crop as their "poster girl" to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be: because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently "let off" by the courts when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.
This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.................... Read more at this link: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/17-april-2007-family-integrity-223.html
3. Response to Labour form email: Below is a form letter being sent out by various Labour MPs in response to letters they receive on the Section 59 issue. I've responded to many of the inaccurate and spurious things these Labour ideologists say and thought you might be interested in the arguments yourselves............ http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/5-april-2007-family-integrity-216.html
4. Response to Bradford's latest form email: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/11-april-2007-family-integrity-218.html
5. Petition: As of 16 April 2007, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill's Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Read more here: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/16-april-2007-larry-baldock-and-sheryl.html.
Larry Baldock says "Without your initiative to go out and get signatures we could never have reached this point after only six weeks. Remember Please send in what you have collected each week if possible to make it easier on our mail openers!" For some comments, ideas, reminders, answers to FAQ and plans go to: http://tvornz.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A93B6100E328706D!367.entry and Larry says under plans "....As much as possible we need to keep steadily collecting through April and then be prepared for another major effort when the media and public interest will again be aroused for two weeks at least. Once we have a total of more than 200,000 it should be clear to all MP's that we are definitely going to have a referendum......"
To download Petition forms go to: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
6. Continue to lobby the MPs and NGO's supporting this Bill
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
This has got to be the easiest way for every Kiwi to email the pro-repeal, pro-Bradford's Bill MPs.
It's dead easy, just click on a hyperlink and the email program opens up - saves quite a bit of hassle.
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
The pro repeal lobby have set up websites to make it easier for them to email the MPs so the MPs are getting a lot of emails now from both sides. We need to keep the pressure on and not let the pro emails overtake the against emails. Make sure that you clearly show in the subject line what your email is about:
"Don't repeal Section 59"
"Don't vote for the Select Committee's amendment on Section 59" etc
Send these often each week.
For a list of specific MPs to target go to:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required to any MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective.
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that as it.
VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby.
MARCHES: have been in some Towns/Cities because on one person standing up and organising a march or a gathering in the centre of their town. You could do it in your town. Just give us a ring or email us and we will put you in touch with organises of the previous marches for helpful hints on doing this. Many Marches are being planned for May - if your town doesn't have a march yet then perhaps consider being the coordinator.
March in Feilding Monday 23 April: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/21-april-2007-family-integrity-227.html
Mass gathering outside Parliament Wednesday 2 May: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/mass-gathering-against-anti-smacking.html
The group in Dunedin were going to have a march there but decided that their time would be better spent going out collecting signatures for the Petition. This is a consideration as well.
Write letters to editors and NGOs, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
Consider telling NGOs that you will be withdrawing your support if they continue to support the repeal or amendment of Section 59.
7. ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children. For a press release click on this link: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/17-april-2007-joint-media-statement.html.
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE AND HIS VISIT AT: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
8. Dates Section 59 due to come up in Parliament: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/next-debate-in-parliament-about-section.html
9. Press Release from Family First----- Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/21-april-2007-family-first-cases-prove.html
10. 35987 people have voted in this poll so far-Make sure you vote too: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/please-vote-in-this-poll.html
Lets keep the pressure on the MPs over the next few weeks. Remember the other side is sending in lots of emails, letters, faxes and visiting and phoning the MPs. Let us not grow weary in well doing. We need to not only be sending in emails, letters, faxes and visiting and phoning our MPs but also encouraging our friends, neighbours and relations in this as well. It is so encouraging to see people who have never got involved in Politics before getting involved now. This is an issue worth fighting for ---- for our children and future generations.
Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Greetings all,
The latest on Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961
Please follow through on reading the links as there is a lot of good information in these links below.
1. Questions for Key & Bradford: Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered "One" through "Five"............ Click on this link for more info including contact details: details: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/20-april-2007-family-integrity-226.html
John Key says: Let me know your thoughts on the anti-smacking bill at: http://www.johnkey.co.nz
2. Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases: Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.
The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the riding crop as their "poster girl" to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be: because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently "let off" by the courts when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.
This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.................... Read more at this link: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/17-april-2007-family-integrity-223.html
3. Response to Labour form email: Below is a form letter being sent out by various Labour MPs in response to letters they receive on the Section 59 issue. I've responded to many of the inaccurate and spurious things these Labour ideologists say and thought you might be interested in the arguments yourselves............ http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/5-april-2007-family-integrity-216.html
4. Response to Bradford's latest form email: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/11-april-2007-family-integrity-218.html
5. Petition: As of 16 April 2007, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill's Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, "should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Read more here: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/16-april-2007-larry-baldock-and-sheryl.html.
Larry Baldock says "Without your initiative to go out and get signatures we could never have reached this point after only six weeks. Remember Please send in what you have collected each week if possible to make it easier on our mail openers!" For some comments, ideas, reminders, answers to FAQ and plans go to: http://tvornz.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!A93B6100E328706D!367.entry and Larry says under plans "....As much as possible we need to keep steadily collecting through April and then be prepared for another major effort when the media and public interest will again be aroused for two weeks at least. Once we have a total of more than 200,000 it should be clear to all MP's that we are definitely going to have a referendum......"
To download Petition forms go to: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
6. Continue to lobby the MPs and NGO's supporting this Bill
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
This has got to be the easiest way for every Kiwi to email the pro-repeal, pro-Bradford's Bill MPs.
It's dead easy, just click on a hyperlink and the email program opens up - saves quite a bit of hassle.
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
The pro repeal lobby have set up websites to make it easier for them to email the MPs so the MPs are getting a lot of emails now from both sides. We need to keep the pressure on and not let the pro emails overtake the against emails. Make sure that you clearly show in the subject line what your email is about:
"Don't repeal Section 59"
"Don't vote for the Select Committee's amendment on Section 59" etc
Send these often each week.
For a list of specific MPs to target go to:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MPs%20to%20target%20re%20smacking.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required to any MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective.
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that as it.
VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby.
MARCHES: have been in some Towns/Cities because on one person standing up and organising a march or a gathering in the centre of their town. You could do it in your town. Just give us a ring or email us and we will put you in touch with organises of the previous marches for helpful hints on doing this. Many Marches are being planned for May - if your town doesn't have a march yet then perhaps consider being the coordinator.
March in Feilding Monday 23 April: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/21-april-2007-family-integrity-227.html
Mass gathering outside Parliament Wednesday 2 May: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/mass-gathering-against-anti-smacking.html
The group in Dunedin were going to have a march there but decided that their time would be better spent going out collecting signatures for the Petition. This is a consideration as well.
Write letters to editors and NGOs, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
Consider telling NGOs that you will be withdrawing your support if they continue to support the repeal or amendment of Section 59.
7. ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children. For a press release click on this link: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/17-april-2007-joint-media-statement.html.
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE AND HIS VISIT AT: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
8. Dates Section 59 due to come up in Parliament: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/next-debate-in-parliament-about-section.html
9. Press Release from Family First----- Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/21-april-2007-family-first-cases-prove.html
10. 35987 people have voted in this poll so far-Make sure you vote too: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/please-vote-in-this-poll.html
Lets keep the pressure on the MPs over the next few weeks. Remember the other side is sending in lots of emails, letters, faxes and visiting and phoning the MPs. Let us not grow weary in well doing. We need to not only be sending in emails, letters, faxes and visiting and phoning our MPs but also encouraging our friends, neighbours and relations in this as well. It is so encouraging to see people who have never got involved in Politics before getting involved now. This is an issue worth fighting for ---- for our children and future generations.
Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
23 Apr 2007 - Family First newsletter
23 Apr 2007 - Family First newsletter
Hi Barbara,
1. Arriving next week......
ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science - Oklahoma State University
Thank you for all the support received in helping get Dr Larzelere to NZ. We are well on the way to raising the funds needed for this tour.
He arrives next week, and is already booked on the following shows:
TV3 Campbell Live
Newstalk ZB Leighton Smith
Radio Live Breakfast
Radio Live Willie Jackson and John Tamihere Show
Radio Rhema
NZ Herald interview
More FM
Radio 531 PI
and more bookings each day ......
and is meeting politicians from:
NZ First
Maori Party
National
United Future
and is also meeting Sue Bradford!
His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:
1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE HERE - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
If you would like to help bring Dr Larzelere (and his wife) to NZ at this crucial time, would you consider making a Gift to cover our expenses.
(We are budgeting on a total cost of approximately $8-9,000 for the week long tour.)
Please donate through our website .
This link contains details for Credit Card payments, Posting Cheques and Direct Deposits.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Support_us
Please clearly mark your Gift as being for " LARZELERE ".
2. Recommended Reading
Ian Wishart’s blockbuster new book is tackling the root causes of family and societal breakdown, and for every copy you order FAMILY FIRST will receive a $5 donation!
EVE’S BITE, an expose of just how much damage social engineering and political correctness have done to New Zealand and the western world.
Wishart tracks the spread of the world’s most contagiously deadly ideologies and finds them now deeply rooted in schools, universities, workplaces and governments throughout the West. He looks at who is behind them and why.
A MUST READ FOR FAMILY FIRST SUPPORTERS!
ORDER YOUR COPY BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK http://www.investigatemagazine.com/familyfirst.pdf
$27.90, and if you order before May 6 they’ll wipe the shipping fees once the order is received.
Additionally $5 from every copy goes to support Family First. Please make sure if you order online that you specify it is a Family First order .
Recent News Media Releases
* Families pulling kids out of school for cheap holidays - SO??!!!
* Media Violence mat be casting shadow over Virginia Tech tragedy
* Peter Pan parents seek advice from kids
* Education study spotlights abortion
* Stronger economy, longer marriages
* Condom promotion 'most complained' about in 2006 !!!!!!
* Teen pregnancy `too high' - so they come up with the same failed solutions!!
* Bad kids make unhealthy adults if antisocial behaviour unchecked
MORE NEWS JUST RELEASED
* Family Holidays Don't Represent a Truancy Problem 23 Apr 07
* Cases Prove Child Abuse cases not being protected by s59 21 Apr 07
* Family First reminds Parents to Claim Refund on School Fees 12 Apr 07
* Workers deserve their Easter break 5 Apr 07
* Education Minister sets poor example for children 4 Apr 07
MORE MEDIA RELEASES
Published Articles Become part of the team!
WRONG TO SMACK BUT RIGHT TO KILL - Ross Clark
UK Telegraph
The real abuse of children is not smacking them when they are naughty but terminating their lives before they have even had a chance to misbehave.
." READ MORE
CHILDREN'S NEEDS, NOT RIGHTS, SHOULD BE THE FOCUS
Published in the Dominion Post and O.D.T.
Bob McCoskrie – National Director Family First
Parents have every right to be very nervous over recent media reports of cases involving the rise in Children’s Rights. READ MORE
MORE ARTICLES
It is time to raise your voice in support of ideas and policies which will be good for New Zealand families.Together, we can make a difference.
Please register your interest by providing some simple contact information. We will keep you up to date with the development of Family First, the issues that affect families in New Zealand and provide information and inspiration to help you to have a voice.
To read the links above please go to the Family First link below
www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |
Hi Barbara,
1. Arriving next week......
ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science - Oklahoma State University
Thank you for all the support received in helping get Dr Larzelere to NZ. We are well on the way to raising the funds needed for this tour.
He arrives next week, and is already booked on the following shows:
TV3 Campbell Live
Newstalk ZB Leighton Smith
Radio Live Breakfast
Radio Live Willie Jackson and John Tamihere Show
Radio Rhema
NZ Herald interview
More FM
Radio 531 PI
and more bookings each day ......
and is meeting politicians from:
NZ First
Maori Party
National
United Future
and is also meeting Sue Bradford!
His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:
1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE HERE - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
If you would like to help bring Dr Larzelere (and his wife) to NZ at this crucial time, would you consider making a Gift to cover our expenses.
(We are budgeting on a total cost of approximately $8-9,000 for the week long tour.)
Please donate through our website .
This link contains details for Credit Card payments, Posting Cheques and Direct Deposits.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Support_us
Please clearly mark your Gift as being for " LARZELERE ".
2. Recommended Reading
Ian Wishart’s blockbuster new book is tackling the root causes of family and societal breakdown, and for every copy you order FAMILY FIRST will receive a $5 donation!
EVE’S BITE, an expose of just how much damage social engineering and political correctness have done to New Zealand and the western world.
Wishart tracks the spread of the world’s most contagiously deadly ideologies and finds them now deeply rooted in schools, universities, workplaces and governments throughout the West. He looks at who is behind them and why.
A MUST READ FOR FAMILY FIRST SUPPORTERS!
ORDER YOUR COPY BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK http://www.investigatemagazine.com/familyfirst.pdf
$27.90, and if you order before May 6 they’ll wipe the shipping fees once the order is received.
Additionally $5 from every copy goes to support Family First. Please make sure if you order online that you specify it is a Family First order .
Recent News Media Releases
* Families pulling kids out of school for cheap holidays - SO??!!!
* Media Violence mat be casting shadow over Virginia Tech tragedy
* Peter Pan parents seek advice from kids
* Education study spotlights abortion
* Stronger economy, longer marriages
* Condom promotion 'most complained' about in 2006 !!!!!!
* Teen pregnancy `too high' - so they come up with the same failed solutions!!
* Bad kids make unhealthy adults if antisocial behaviour unchecked
MORE NEWS JUST RELEASED
* Family Holidays Don't Represent a Truancy Problem 23 Apr 07
* Cases Prove Child Abuse cases not being protected by s59 21 Apr 07
* Family First reminds Parents to Claim Refund on School Fees 12 Apr 07
* Workers deserve their Easter break 5 Apr 07
* Education Minister sets poor example for children 4 Apr 07
MORE MEDIA RELEASES
Published Articles Become part of the team!
WRONG TO SMACK BUT RIGHT TO KILL - Ross Clark
UK Telegraph
The real abuse of children is not smacking them when they are naughty but terminating their lives before they have even had a chance to misbehave.
." READ MORE
CHILDREN'S NEEDS, NOT RIGHTS, SHOULD BE THE FOCUS
Published in the Dominion Post and O.D.T.
Bob McCoskrie – National Director Family First
Parents have every right to be very nervous over recent media reports of cases involving the rise in Children’s Rights. READ MORE
MORE ARTICLES
It is time to raise your voice in support of ideas and policies which will be good for New Zealand families.Together, we can make a difference.
Please register your interest by providing some simple contact information. We will keep you up to date with the development of Family First, the issues that affect families in New Zealand and provide information and inspiration to help you to have a voice.
To read the links above please go to the Family First link below
www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |
23 April 2007 - Family Integrity #231 -- Smack down the middle
Greetings,
Well, the Show on TV last night:
Sunday Night 7.30pm
Smack down the Middle
DID NOT, in fact, deal with the famous "hosepipe" case the repeal lobby bring up time and again. It dealt with a totally unknown case that is unknown because it never made it to court but was tossed out by a couple of Taranaki JPs who decided it was not worth prosecuting.
Just to point out a few things: the father of the boy was all upset. Well, for crying out loud, who was it sent his own son away because he could no longer handle him? Did he not choose where the boy got sent? Did he not check out what kind of treatment the boy would get there?
The boy was asked if he'd ever smack his own future children. "No, unless they...." There you have it.
The father said, in spite of all this, he DID NOT support Bradford's Bill.
I must also add that the smack the uncle administered was controlled, not in anger, measured and explained to the boy and the boy apparently submitted to it.
In virtually ALL the discussions about smacking, parents are portrayed as lashing out in frustration, anger, having come to the end of their tether. The wee film clips of parents smacking children with their hands are all of this variety. THis is not controlled, useful, purposeful corporal correction. This is what most would call "light smacks" that they don't want to see banned. It is the measured strokes with a wooden spoon or cane that are, in fact, most judicial, helpful, purposeful, effective, are explained to the child, are submitted to by the child, but which are most likely to be banned because they have not entered into the debate.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Well, the Show on TV last night:
Sunday Night 7.30pm
Smack down the Middle
DID NOT, in fact, deal with the famous "hosepipe" case the repeal lobby bring up time and again. It dealt with a totally unknown case that is unknown because it never made it to court but was tossed out by a couple of Taranaki JPs who decided it was not worth prosecuting.
Just to point out a few things: the father of the boy was all upset. Well, for crying out loud, who was it sent his own son away because he could no longer handle him? Did he not choose where the boy got sent? Did he not check out what kind of treatment the boy would get there?
The boy was asked if he'd ever smack his own future children. "No, unless they...." There you have it.
The father said, in spite of all this, he DID NOT support Bradford's Bill.
I must also add that the smack the uncle administered was controlled, not in anger, measured and explained to the boy and the boy apparently submitted to it.
In virtually ALL the discussions about smacking, parents are portrayed as lashing out in frustration, anger, having come to the end of their tether. The wee film clips of parents smacking children with their hands are all of this variety. THis is not controlled, useful, purposeful corporal correction. This is what most would call "light smacks" that they don't want to see banned. It is the measured strokes with a wooden spoon or cane that are, in fact, most judicial, helpful, purposeful, effective, are explained to the child, are submitted to by the child, but which are most likely to be banned because they have not entered into the debate.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Sunday, 22 April 2007
22 April 2007 - Family Integrity #229 -- hosepipe case on TV 1 tonight
Sorry about late notice: I only just found out:
an extensive review of the "hosepipe" case of discipline the repeal lobby constantly bring up is on as part of the Sunday Documentary programme, 7:30 tonight on TV 1. I don't know what the over all spin to it will be, but it is one of the three the repeal lobby bring up all the time (the other two being the Timaru riding crop case and the Hawkes Bay "plank of wood" case, which is interesting because the "plank" was 2cm by 30cm, the size of a standard wooden spoon and the judge acquitted the parent as soon as he heard the facts without a Section 59 defense even being raised!!)
Regards
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
an extensive review of the "hosepipe" case of discipline the repeal lobby constantly bring up is on as part of the Sunday Documentary programme, 7:30 tonight on TV 1. I don't know what the over all spin to it will be, but it is one of the three the repeal lobby bring up all the time (the other two being the Timaru riding crop case and the Hawkes Bay "plank of wood" case, which is interesting because the "plank" was 2cm by 30cm, the size of a standard wooden spoon and the judge acquitted the parent as soon as he heard the facts without a Section 59 defense even being raised!!)
Regards
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Next debate in Parliament about Section 59
2 May after 2pm - Next debate in Parliament about Section 59
These are the possible dates that the bill can be voted on:
2 May
16 May possible vote but with budget May 17 may put it off
13 June likely date for vote
27 June possibly date for vote
25 July
15 August
These are the possible dates that the bill can be voted on:
2 May
16 May possible vote but with budget May 17 may put it off
13 June likely date for vote
27 June possibly date for vote
25 July
15 August
21 April 2007 - Family Integrity #227 -- Third Feilding Protest Rally
Diane Woodward is organising the third rally in Feilding to protest against the passage of Bradford's Bill to re-write Section 59.
This one is to draw attention to the meeting between National's John Key and Green's Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April.
Meet at the Feilding Clock Tower at 12 Noon Monday 23 April, two days before ANZAC Day.
Regards,
Craig & Barbara Smith
This one is to draw attention to the meeting between National's John Key and Green's Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April.
Meet at the Feilding Clock Tower at 12 Noon Monday 23 April, two days before ANZAC Day.
Regards,
Craig & Barbara Smith
21 April 2007 - Family Integrity #228 -- When God Gets Kicked Out
This wee (G rated) video clip pretty well explains why we're in the
state we're in.
http://www.afr.net/newafr/wekickedgodout.asp
Regards,
Craig & Barbara Smith
state we're in.
http://www.afr.net/newafr/wekickedgodout.asp
Regards,
Craig & Barbara Smith
20 April 2007 - Family Integrity - Questions for Key & Bradford
Press Release
For Immediate Distribution
It appears John Key of National and Bradford of the Greens are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford's first and foremost piece of propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible, understood by each succeeding generation according to the social attitudes of the times, not like Bradford's proposed re-write of Section 59, confused by too many undefined words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse: household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships, welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent's use of force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate, get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries of 12 of her peers determined to be "reasonable force." We now see, from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that it is not the "reasonable force" to which Bradford objects, for it is still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct their own children.
Section 59 doesn't promote abuse and violence toward children: it is one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it only allows parents to use "reasonable force" and then only "by way of correction". When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to
communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned parents in particular, call this for what it is -- telling lies -- and do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
I trust that Key at least, if not every reporter in the country, will demand that Bradford answer the following mysteries about her ridiculous anti-parent, anti-family Bill (both the present Section 59 and the Proposed Re-write are included below for reference):
Number One: What Is Meant by Correction?
A. Define "Correction" as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of "Correction" include "discipline"?
C. Does it include "training"?
D. Does it include "chastisement"?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use "reasonable force in the circumstances" to discipline, train or chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford's definition of "correction" obviously fall outside of what most parents would say is "incidental to good care and parenting"? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what constitutes "good care and parenting"?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Sub-Sections 1a through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three: What is Wrong with Correcting Children?
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the "reasonable force in the circumstances" idea as it exists both in the present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using "reasonable force" when it is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in Bradford's thinking that it must be legislated against when this same "reasonable force" can be used in the multitude of other circumstances allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: "As long as the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force is used on the child AFTER the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms of correction and is therefore illegal."
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view "correction" (and "discipline" and "training" and "chastisement") of children as integral parts of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting"? How does Bradford intend for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her
as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four: Isn't "Reasonable Force" still "Reasonable Force"?
Bradford has consistently said that the "reasonable force for the purpose of correction" provision of the current Section 59 has allowed violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the "reasonable force" provision in any way except to forbid it for the
purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from
letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely the same; the only difference is that "correction" is now forbidden, but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five: So If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Parents Are Automatically Guilty?
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether a parent's use of force was preventative or corrective that the corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only
guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing apples from the neighbour's tree and slap his hand as he picks another one so that he doen't actually detach it, and confesses he was stealing without the neighbour's permission, this is justified by Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the neighbour's, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective, Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified
and I'd be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour's and forcing him to give the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he didn't was not going to do either, I said he'd be banned from any TV, Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for
$3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I
required of him n front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of this. During the next week there were four instances where I had physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to correct my son's actions and their downstream implications, the force I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2,
is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and...every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
For Immediate Distribution
It appears John Key of National and Bradford of the Greens are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford's first and foremost piece of propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible, understood by each succeeding generation according to the social attitudes of the times, not like Bradford's proposed re-write of Section 59, confused by too many undefined words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse: household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships, welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent's use of force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate, get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries of 12 of her peers determined to be "reasonable force." We now see, from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that it is not the "reasonable force" to which Bradford objects, for it is still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct their own children.
Section 59 doesn't promote abuse and violence toward children: it is one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it only allows parents to use "reasonable force" and then only "by way of correction". When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to
communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned parents in particular, call this for what it is -- telling lies -- and do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
I trust that Key at least, if not every reporter in the country, will demand that Bradford answer the following mysteries about her ridiculous anti-parent, anti-family Bill (both the present Section 59 and the Proposed Re-write are included below for reference):
Number One: What Is Meant by Correction?
A. Define "Correction" as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of "Correction" include "discipline"?
C. Does it include "training"?
D. Does it include "chastisement"?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use "reasonable force in the circumstances" to discipline, train or chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford's definition of "correction" obviously fall outside of what most parents would say is "incidental to good care and parenting"? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what constitutes "good care and parenting"?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Sub-Sections 1a through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three: What is Wrong with Correcting Children?
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the "reasonable force in the circumstances" idea as it exists both in the present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using "reasonable force" when it is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in Bradford's thinking that it must be legislated against when this same "reasonable force" can be used in the multitude of other circumstances allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: "As long as the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force is used on the child AFTER the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms of correction and is therefore illegal."
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view "correction" (and "discipline" and "training" and "chastisement") of children as integral parts of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting"? How does Bradford intend for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her
as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four: Isn't "Reasonable Force" still "Reasonable Force"?
Bradford has consistently said that the "reasonable force for the purpose of correction" provision of the current Section 59 has allowed violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the "reasonable force" provision in any way except to forbid it for the
purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from
letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely the same; the only difference is that "correction" is now forbidden, but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five: So If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Parents Are Automatically Guilty?
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether a parent's use of force was preventative or corrective that the corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only
guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing apples from the neighbour's tree and slap his hand as he picks another one so that he doen't actually detach it, and confesses he was stealing without the neighbour's permission, this is justified by Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the neighbour's, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective, Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified
and I'd be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour's and forcing him to give the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he didn't was not going to do either, I said he'd be banned from any TV, Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for
$3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I
required of him n front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of this. During the next week there were four instances where I had physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to correct my son's actions and their downstream implications, the force I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2,
is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and...every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
21 APRIL 2007 - Family First - Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00276.htm
Section 59
MEDIA RELEASE
21 APRIL 2007
Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
Three cases of assaults on children over the past fortnight have proved that the claim that section 59 is protecting child abusers is totally false.
A Hawkes Bay woman faces a jail term for taking to her son with a wooden spoon and leaving him with 4cm welts. A Tauranga mother who admitted she slapped her 10-year-old daughter about the face and body at least five times to discipline her for back-chatting has also been convicted of assault.
And yesterday, an Invercargill mother was convicted of assault of a child after she used the child's folder to hit him across the arms and used her open hand to hit him across the buttocks. The boy received extensive bruising to his hands, arms, lower buttocks and upper thighs.
“Section 59 did not protect these parents – and nor should it have,” says National Director Bob McCoskrie. “But what these cases do show is that the current law is working.”
“These assaults are quite obviously not reasonable – and are quite different to light smacks which over 80% of NZ’ers support as being appropriate for the parental guidance and correction of children. Kiwis understand the difference between reasonable correction of a child and child abuse.”
Mr McCoskrie says these cases prove it is time to ditch the Bradford ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and start tackling the real causes of child abuse – family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress.
“A ban on smacking is simply a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Section 59
MEDIA RELEASE
21 APRIL 2007
Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
Three cases of assaults on children over the past fortnight have proved that the claim that section 59 is protecting child abusers is totally false.
A Hawkes Bay woman faces a jail term for taking to her son with a wooden spoon and leaving him with 4cm welts. A Tauranga mother who admitted she slapped her 10-year-old daughter about the face and body at least five times to discipline her for back-chatting has also been convicted of assault.
And yesterday, an Invercargill mother was convicted of assault of a child after she used the child's folder to hit him across the arms and used her open hand to hit him across the buttocks. The boy received extensive bruising to his hands, arms, lower buttocks and upper thighs.
“Section 59 did not protect these parents – and nor should it have,” says National Director Bob McCoskrie. “But what these cases do show is that the current law is working.”
“These assaults are quite obviously not reasonable – and are quite different to light smacks which over 80% of NZ’ers support as being appropriate for the parental guidance and correction of children. Kiwis understand the difference between reasonable correction of a child and child abuse.”
Mr McCoskrie says these cases prove it is time to ditch the Bradford ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and start tackling the real causes of child abuse – family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress.
“A ban on smacking is simply a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
18 April 2007 - Newstalk - Key looks for smacking compromise
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=114850
Key looks for smacking compromise
18/04/2007 16:23:00
Newstalk ZBs Larry Williams speaks with National leader John Key about his bottom-line on the anti-smacking bill.
Listen in the link above
Key looks for smacking compromise
18/04/2007 16:23:00
Newstalk ZBs Larry Williams speaks with National leader John Key about his bottom-line on the anti-smacking bill.
Listen in the link above
Friday, 20 April 2007
20 April 2007 - Family Integrity #226 -- Questions for Key & Bradford
Greetings,
Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
To help us know what to do, I've pasted below the present Section 59 as well as the re-write of Section 59 that the present Parliament is considering as a replacement for the presnet Section 59.
Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered "One" through "Five". (Contact details for both below).
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford's first and foremost piece of propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible, understood by each succeeding generation according to the social attitudes of the times, not confused by too many undefined and unusual words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse: household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships, welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent's use of force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate, get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries of 12 of her peers determined to be "reasonable force." We now see, from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that it is not the "reasonable force" to which Bradford objects, for it is still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct their own children.
Section 59 doesn't promote abuse and violence toward children: it is one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it only allows parents to use "reasonable force" and then only "by way of correction". When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned parents in particular, call this for what it is -- telling lies -- and do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
Ask the following of Key and Bradford"
Number One:
A. Define "Correction" as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of "Correction" include "discipline"?
C. Does it include "training"?
D. Does it include "chastisement"?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use "reasonable force in the circumstances" to discipline, train or chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford's definition of "correction" obviously fall outside of what most parents would say is "incidental to good care and parenting"? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what constitutes "good care and parenting"?
Number Two:
A. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Sub-Sections 1a through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three:
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the "reasonable force in the circumstances" idea as it exists both in the present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using "reasonable force" when it is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in Bradford's thinking that it must be legislated against when this same "reasonable force" can be used in the multitude of other circumstances allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: "As long as the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force is used on the child AFTER the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms of correction and is therefore illegal."
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view "correction" (and "discipline" and "training" and "chastisement") of children as integral parts of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting"? How does Bradford intend for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four:
Bradford has consistently said that the "reasonable force for the purpose of correction" provision of the current Section 59 has allowed violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the "reasonable force" provision in any way except to forbid it for the purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely the same; the only difference is that "correction" is now forbidden, but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five:
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether a parent's use of force was preventative or corrective that the corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing apples from the neighbour's tree and slap his hand as he picks another one so that he doen't actually detach it, and confesses he was stealing without the neighbour's permission, this is justified by Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the neighbour's, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective, Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified and I'd be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour's and forcing him to give the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he didn't was not going to do either, I said he'd be banned from any TV, Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for $3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I required of him in front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of this. During the next week there were four instances where I had physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to correct my son's actions and their downstream implications, the force I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2, is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and...every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Contact details for John Key:
Email John Key: john.key@national.org.nz
Email John Key's Parliamentary secretary, Emma Holmes: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Email John Key's electorate assistant, Mel macDonald: mel@johnkey.mp.net.nz
Phone (Parliament): 04-471-9307
Fax (Parliament): 04-473-3689
Phone (Helensville electorate): 09-412-2496
Surface Mail: John Key, Leader of the Opposition - Room 3.014 - Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Electorate office: 265 State Highway 16, Kumeu, Helensville, Auckland
Contact details for Sue Bradford:
Parliamentary Contacts:
Email: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: 04-470 6720
Fax: 04-472 6003
Freepost Parliament
PO Box 18,888, Wellington.
Green Party Office Contacts:
308 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland
P O Box 1553, Shortland Street, Auckland
socialjustice@greens.org.nz
ph. (09) 361 6202
Fax (09) 361 5926
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford's Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
To help us know what to do, I've pasted below the present Section 59 as well as the re-write of Section 59 that the present Parliament is considering as a replacement for the presnet Section 59.
Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered "One" through "Five". (Contact details for both below).
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford's first and foremost piece of propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible, understood by each succeeding generation according to the social attitudes of the times, not confused by too many undefined and unusual words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse: household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships, welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent's use of force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate, get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries of 12 of her peers determined to be "reasonable force." We now see, from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that it is not the "reasonable force" to which Bradford objects, for it is still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct their own children.
Section 59 doesn't promote abuse and violence toward children: it is one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it only allows parents to use "reasonable force" and then only "by way of correction". When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned parents in particular, call this for what it is -- telling lies -- and do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
Ask the following of Key and Bradford"
Number One:
A. Define "Correction" as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of "Correction" include "discipline"?
C. Does it include "training"?
D. Does it include "chastisement"?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use "reasonable force in the circumstances" to discipline, train or chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford's definition of "correction" obviously fall outside of what most parents would say is "incidental to good care and parenting"? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what constitutes "good care and parenting"?
Number Two:
A. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Sub-Sections 1a through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three:
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the "reasonable force in the circumstances" idea as it exists both in the present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using "reasonable force" when it is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in Bradford's thinking that it must be legislated against when this same "reasonable force" can be used in the multitude of other circumstances allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: "As long as the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force is used on the child AFTER the child's act of harm or crime or disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms of correction and is therefore illegal."
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view "correction" (and "discipline" and "training" and "chastisement") of children as integral parts of "performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting"? How does Bradford intend for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four:
Bradford has consistently said that the "reasonable force for the purpose of correction" provision of the current Section 59 has allowed violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the "reasonable force" provision in any way except to forbid it for the purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely the same; the only difference is that "correction" is now forbidden, but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five:
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether a parent's use of force was preventative or corrective that the corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing apples from the neighbour's tree and slap his hand as he picks another one so that he doen't actually detach it, and confesses he was stealing without the neighbour's permission, this is justified by Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the neighbour's, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective, Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified and I'd be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour's and forcing him to give the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he didn't was not going to do either, I said he'd be banned from any TV, Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for $3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I required of him in front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of this. During the next week there were four instances where I had physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to correct my son's actions and their downstream implications, the force I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2, is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and...every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Contact details for John Key:
Email John Key: john.key@national.org.nz
Email John Key's Parliamentary secretary, Emma Holmes: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Email John Key's electorate assistant, Mel macDonald: mel@johnkey.mp.net.nz
Phone (Parliament): 04-471-9307
Fax (Parliament): 04-473-3689
Phone (Helensville electorate): 09-412-2496
Surface Mail: John Key, Leader of the Opposition - Room 3.014 - Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Electorate office: 265 State Highway 16, Kumeu, Helensville, Auckland
Contact details for Sue Bradford:
Parliamentary Contacts:
Email: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: 04-470 6720
Fax: 04-472 6003
Freepost Parliament
PO Box 18,888, Wellington.
Green Party Office Contacts:
308 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland
P O Box 1553, Shortland Street, Auckland
socialjustice@greens.org.nz
ph. (09) 361 6202
Fax (09) 361 5926
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home....Our Castle
20 April 2007 - The Dominion Post - Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4031837a6000.html
Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
MARTIN KAY - The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007
Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.
In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader - who is in coalition with Labour - cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.
About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as "spanking, slapping or hitting".
Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which removes the statutory "reasonable force" defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.
Mr Anderton said the study showed that people "emotionally damaged through violence" were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.
His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used - which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates - was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research "wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was".
Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture.
"What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren't smacked."
Supporters of Ms Bradford's bill say it will remove the protection for parents who thrash their children. Opponents say it will criminalise good mothers and fathers.
The bill is set to pass comfortably with support from Labour, the Maori Party, National MP Katherine Rich, NZ First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne.
Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
MARTIN KAY - The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007
Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.
In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader - who is in coalition with Labour - cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.
About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as "spanking, slapping or hitting".
Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which removes the statutory "reasonable force" defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.
Mr Anderton said the study showed that people "emotionally damaged through violence" were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.
His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used - which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates - was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research "wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was".
Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture.
"What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren't smacked."
Supporters of Ms Bradford's bill say it will remove the protection for parents who thrash their children. Opponents say it will criminalise good mothers and fathers.
The bill is set to pass comfortably with support from Labour, the Maori Party, National MP Katherine Rich, NZ First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
19 April 2007 - Scoop coverage of Section 59
Here is a summary of some press releases this year in relation to Section 59.
Scoop Full Coverage: Section 59 - Ouch!
Friday, 23 February 2007, 7:33 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00195.htm
Scoop Full Coverage of Anti-Smacking Bill
Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 11:13 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00231.htm
Full Coverage (Part2) of Section 59 Bill
Thursday, 29 March 2007, 9:09 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm
Scoop Full Coverage: Section 59 - Ouch!
Friday, 23 February 2007, 7:33 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00195.htm
Scoop Full Coverage of Anti-Smacking Bill
Wednesday, 14 March 2007, 11:13 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00231.htm
Full Coverage (Part2) of Section 59 Bill
Thursday, 29 March 2007, 9:09 am
Article: Scoop Full Coverage
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00511.htm
19 April 2007 - Libertarianz Party - Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00252.htm
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
Thursday, 19 April 2007, 2:42 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
"It is heartening to see John Key take a stand on the anti-smacking bill by refusing to meet with Sue Bradford. But what he hopes to gain by a wording change to the bill is unclear as we already have legislation outlawing assault on children," said Peter Osborne, Libertarianz Social Welfare Spokesman. "Then again, changing the wording to the bill will also allow John Key to do what he does best; compromise and fence sitting."
He says, "The only good thing to come from the anti-smacking bill is that it has shown us what bare faced liars Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are. Prior to the public outcry both Clark and Bradford were clear that this bill outlawed smacking of any kind. When they realised the unpopularity of their interference into our lives they both changed their spin. Of course the bill remains clear: the Police will be forced to arrest good, loving parents for smacking their children."
Mr Osborne continues, "People must question why, with the ever increasing political interference into our private lives, assaults and murders of children are becoming more vicious and common! Libertarianz understands only too well that it is because of the insidious New Zealand welfare system. When people are paid systematically to do nothing; to aspire to nothing, their lives are altered from a future of possibilities and aspirations to an easy option of subsidised nothingness. In the guise of 'helping' people, politicians have created a system which brings out the worst in many."
In conclusion Osborne says, "Libertarianz believes that if people are left to peacefully live without the burdens and interference of the state then human resourcefulness will allow everyone the opportunity to improve their lives and to strive for the best within themselves. What a wonderful environment that would be for raising children! Our constitution would ensure that the Bradfords, Clarks and Keys of this world would have no power to erode the freedom that is ours by right."
"It's Enough to Make you Vote Libertarianz!"
ENDS
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
Thursday, 19 April 2007, 2:42 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
"It is heartening to see John Key take a stand on the anti-smacking bill by refusing to meet with Sue Bradford. But what he hopes to gain by a wording change to the bill is unclear as we already have legislation outlawing assault on children," said Peter Osborne, Libertarianz Social Welfare Spokesman. "Then again, changing the wording to the bill will also allow John Key to do what he does best; compromise and fence sitting."
He says, "The only good thing to come from the anti-smacking bill is that it has shown us what bare faced liars Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are. Prior to the public outcry both Clark and Bradford were clear that this bill outlawed smacking of any kind. When they realised the unpopularity of their interference into our lives they both changed their spin. Of course the bill remains clear: the Police will be forced to arrest good, loving parents for smacking their children."
Mr Osborne continues, "People must question why, with the ever increasing political interference into our private lives, assaults and murders of children are becoming more vicious and common! Libertarianz understands only too well that it is because of the insidious New Zealand welfare system. When people are paid systematically to do nothing; to aspire to nothing, their lives are altered from a future of possibilities and aspirations to an easy option of subsidised nothingness. In the guise of 'helping' people, politicians have created a system which brings out the worst in many."
In conclusion Osborne says, "Libertarianz believes that if people are left to peacefully live without the burdens and interference of the state then human resourcefulness will allow everyone the opportunity to improve their lives and to strive for the best within themselves. What a wonderful environment that would be for raising children! Our constitution would ensure that the Bradfords, Clarks and Keys of this world would have no power to erode the freedom that is ours by right."
"It's Enough to Make you Vote Libertarianz!"
ENDS
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
18 April 2007 - New Zealand National Party - Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0704/S00310.htm
Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key
Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.
"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.
"The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they've got a major problem with the current wording."
Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.
"But there's no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.
"That is the first step towards finding some common ground."
Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won't criminalise parents.
"If Labour really believes that 'light smacking for the purposes of correction' will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to 'lightly smack for the purposes of correction'.
"The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.
"So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let's get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.
"For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table."
ENDS
Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key
Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.
"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.
"The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they've got a major problem with the current wording."
Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.
"But there's no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.
"That is the first step towards finding some common ground."
Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won't criminalise parents.
"If Labour really believes that 'light smacking for the purposes of correction' will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to 'lightly smack for the purposes of correction'.
"The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.
"So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let's get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.
"For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table."
ENDS
18 April 2007 - Family Integrity #224 -- World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00208.htm
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
17 APRIL 2007
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.
Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark 'Anti-Smacking' Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow's (which substantially lowers the definition of what is 'reasonable' without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.
Dr Larzelere has been one of the world's foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years - including:
His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:
He has written over 70 research papers on this topic including :
He is also a Member of the following professional organisations : American Psychological Association
APA Task Force on Corporal Punishment
Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Association for Psychological Science
And the National Council on Family Relations
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE AND HIS VISIT AT - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
ENDS
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
17 APRIL 2007
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.
Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark 'Anti-Smacking' Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow's (which substantially lowers the definition of what is 'reasonable' without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.
Dr Larzelere has been one of the world's foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years - including:
*One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code. (The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own country!)
*Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association.
*One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by American Academy of Pediatrics.
His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:
1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?
He has written over 70 research papers on this topic including :
*Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics : A meta-analysis.
*Sweden's Smacking Ban: More harm than good . (Refutes research presented by Joan Durrant which has been used as evidence for repealing s59 by NZ's Children's Commissioner, UNICEF, Barnados, Plunket and other groups supporting repeal.) .
*Children and Violence in the Family: Scientific Contributions - A Submission to the UN Global Study on Children and Violence
He is also a Member of the following professional organisations : American Psychological Association
APA Task Force on Corporal Punishment
Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Association for Psychological Science
And the National Council on Family Relations
YOU CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT DR LARZELERE AND HIS VISIT AT - http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/larzelere%20info%20sheet.pdf
ENDS
17 April 2007 - Stuff - Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
17 April 2007 - Stuff - Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4029423a11.html
Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
by MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA | Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Green Party MP Sue Bradford has welcomed National leader John Key's call to get together to talk about her bill to change the law around smacking.
However the Government response was cooler.
In a speech today Mr Key said he would like to talk to Prime Minister Helen Clark and Ms Bradford about her controversial member's bill.
The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals for smacking children but supporters say the aim it will only stop people using the defence for serious assaults against children.
Mr Key said most MPs wanted:
**To prevent violence against children being protected by the defence of reasonable force;
**not to criminalise good parents who occasionally gave their children a light smack;
**to lower the threshold for what was considered acceptable physical discipline.
Ms Bradford said she was "absolutely delighted" Mr Key saw the issue as important.
"I welcome very much his offer to play a constructive role in the debate," she said.
She made her own offers – to talk to National's caucus and to organise a meeting for Mr Key, herself and a few groups like Plunket, Barnardos, Save the children and Unicef.
"I'd like to do both those things, I'd like to make that offer back to Mr Key," she said.
Ms Bradford said she was willing to move on her position "if there's anywhere to move" but would not accept defining a level of violence against children.
National MP Chester Borrows previously proposed an amendment to allow parents to use limited force to correct their children.
Ms Bradford said she could not see why there needed to be any defence in the law for assaults against children.
"I want to remove the defence of reasonable force which allows people a defence when they assault their children that is not available when they assault other adults. That is different from creating a new offence of smacking which is what my opponents have painted this as."
Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope said Mr Key's comments about where he stood on the issue were confusing and vague; "but do appear to show that his position now mirrors that of the Government".
Mr Benson-Pope said Mr Key and National had scaremongered about the bill rather than properly debate it.
"I want to assure John Key that the Government would not support any measure that would criminalise good parents," he said.
"It's now up to John Key to put his money where his mouth is and prove to the country that he and his party are serious about addressing child abuse in New Zealand, and that it's not just another case of him shifting his position to suit the audience and trying to get back into the news."
United Future leader Peter Dunne said Mr Key's call for multi-party talks was sensible.
"A common ground discussion between parties might just be able to bring together a package that can gain the support of the vast majority of Parliament and I, for one, would be keen to be involved in such a process," he said.
Mr Dunne said the talks should be for parties, not lobby groups, and the bill put off until they were held.
Debate on the bill is to be held on May 2. At this point it has the numbers to pass.
Mr Key later said that he would take Ms Bradford up on both her offers.
"If there's some common ground that would be a very positive step forward."
Mr Benson-Pope said he was willing to meet and Mr Key said he would contact him to arrange a meeting.
Mr Key did not accept the criticism that his comments were confusing.
"I think they were extremely clear – we spelled out the three points," he said.
"I think it's an indisputable fact that the law will make criminals of parents that lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction – something that both Labour and the Greens publicly say they don't want to happen."
Mr Key said the bill had to change and National was happy to work with Labour and the Greens on that.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4029423a11.html
Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
by MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA | Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Green Party MP Sue Bradford has welcomed National leader John Key's call to get together to talk about her bill to change the law around smacking.
However the Government response was cooler.
In a speech today Mr Key said he would like to talk to Prime Minister Helen Clark and Ms Bradford about her controversial member's bill.
The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals for smacking children but supporters say the aim it will only stop people using the defence for serious assaults against children.
Mr Key said most MPs wanted:
**To prevent violence against children being protected by the defence of reasonable force;
**not to criminalise good parents who occasionally gave their children a light smack;
**to lower the threshold for what was considered acceptable physical discipline.
Ms Bradford said she was "absolutely delighted" Mr Key saw the issue as important.
"I welcome very much his offer to play a constructive role in the debate," she said.
She made her own offers – to talk to National's caucus and to organise a meeting for Mr Key, herself and a few groups like Plunket, Barnardos, Save the children and Unicef.
"I'd like to do both those things, I'd like to make that offer back to Mr Key," she said.
Ms Bradford said she was willing to move on her position "if there's anywhere to move" but would not accept defining a level of violence against children.
National MP Chester Borrows previously proposed an amendment to allow parents to use limited force to correct their children.
Ms Bradford said she could not see why there needed to be any defence in the law for assaults against children.
"I want to remove the defence of reasonable force which allows people a defence when they assault their children that is not available when they assault other adults. That is different from creating a new offence of smacking which is what my opponents have painted this as."
Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope said Mr Key's comments about where he stood on the issue were confusing and vague; "but do appear to show that his position now mirrors that of the Government".
Mr Benson-Pope said Mr Key and National had scaremongered about the bill rather than properly debate it.
"I want to assure John Key that the Government would not support any measure that would criminalise good parents," he said.
"It's now up to John Key to put his money where his mouth is and prove to the country that he and his party are serious about addressing child abuse in New Zealand, and that it's not just another case of him shifting his position to suit the audience and trying to get back into the news."
United Future leader Peter Dunne said Mr Key's call for multi-party talks was sensible.
"A common ground discussion between parties might just be able to bring together a package that can gain the support of the vast majority of Parliament and I, for one, would be keen to be involved in such a process," he said.
Mr Dunne said the talks should be for parties, not lobby groups, and the bill put off until they were held.
Debate on the bill is to be held on May 2. At this point it has the numbers to pass.
Mr Key later said that he would take Ms Bradford up on both her offers.
"If there's some common ground that would be a very positive step forward."
Mr Benson-Pope said he was willing to meet and Mr Key said he would contact him to arrange a meeting.
Mr Key did not accept the criticism that his comments were confusing.
"I think they were extremely clear – we spelled out the three points," he said.
"I think it's an indisputable fact that the law will make criminals of parents that lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction – something that both Labour and the Greens publicly say they don't want to happen."
Mr Key said the bill had to change and National was happy to work with Labour and the Greens on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
