Media Release
For Immediate Distribution
Swedish Academic Slams National MP for Cowardly Attack in Parliament Jacob Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus and Family Law at the University of Stockholm, and author ("Family Law under change") has written to National MP Katherine Rich complaining about her cowardly and unsubstantiated attack on Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who recently visited NZ.
In Rich's speech in parliament recently supporting Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill against the weight of public opinion, Rich slammed Harrold-Claesson as a 'fruit loop' and 'false expert', all said behind the cowardly protection of parliamentary privilege.
However, Professor Sundberg rejects Rich's attack stating that she has "fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm."
Sundberg also slams Katherine Rich's understanding and support of the Swedish experiment with smacking bans and says "Whether Sweden "benefited" from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation."
Katherine Rich should do her homework before making baseless and defamatory attacks against individuals, especially in the cowardly way she did behind the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Letter from Sundberg to Kathryn Rich:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
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if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...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_Chil
dren_Goodbye_7.pdf
Thursday, 31 May 2007
31 May 2007 - Family Integrity #261 -- Things to come
31 May 2007 - Family Integrity #261 -- Things to come
Dear Friends,
This is the kind of thing (see story below #1) I suspect we'll see a lot more of now that the state has established a beachhead in each of our living rooms to tell us we cannot correct our children if they don't want to be corrected. Helen Clark said a while back she doesn't mind marginalising Christians (see below #2). The problem is, most people agree with her since the media have been successful in demonising all Bible-believing or fundamentalist Christians as if they are the West's version of Osama Bin Laden. They conveniently forget, and we Christians are generally too polite to sound our own horns, that we are virtually alone in trying to protect the unborn, in wanting more adoptions, in signing up as foster parents; we are disproportionately represented in fights against the evils and excesses of homosexuality, civils unions, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse and gambling and abortion; we are over volunteer organisations and the Bible specifically commands us to help the poor and needy, which means there is far more help going on that is totally unseen and unrecognised. We are not the only ones involved in these things, but without the Biblical mandate to do these things, secularists would have no logical reason and don't have any moral reason to do so...unless they borrow from Christianity, which we are quite happy for them to do.
Regards,
Craig Smith
#1
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4078437a11.html
Answer sought to MPs' prayer
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 31 May 2007
Parliament's daily prayer is in the spotlight as MPs are being asked to decide whether it should be abandoned or rewritten.
Before each sitting day, MPs bow their heads for a prayer in which they vow their loyalty to the Queen, and promise to lay aside their private and personal interests and promote the maintenance of true religion and justice, before ending with reference to "Jesus Christ Our Lord".
Speaker Margaret Wilson has written to MPs asking whether the prayer should be continued and, if so, whether the wording needs an overhaul.
The timing of the move may be seen as provocative, after a backlash from some Christian quarters over Government support for the child-discipline bill.
This week's interfaith dialogue at Waitangi has been marred by protests over a statement that New Zealand has no state religion.
However, there may be little stomach among MPs for a change, with some suggesting that Parliament has more important business.
One Labour MP said the prayer had been recited for more than 100 years, and there seemed to be no pressing need to change it.
National MP Bill English said the prayer should be kept.
"It's part of the tradition of Parliament unbroken since it started, and it's the only time of the day that politicians are forced to think about something besides themselves."
Green MP Keith Locke said the prayer was outdated and did not represent the views of a substantial proportion of society.
#2
This is Helen Clark being interviewed by sodomites and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:
Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?
A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Dear Friends,
This is the kind of thing (see story below #1) I suspect we'll see a lot more of now that the state has established a beachhead in each of our living rooms to tell us we cannot correct our children if they don't want to be corrected. Helen Clark said a while back she doesn't mind marginalising Christians (see below #2). The problem is, most people agree with her since the media have been successful in demonising all Bible-believing or fundamentalist Christians as if they are the West's version of Osama Bin Laden. They conveniently forget, and we Christians are generally too polite to sound our own horns, that we are virtually alone in trying to protect the unborn, in wanting more adoptions, in signing up as foster parents; we are disproportionately represented in fights against the evils and excesses of homosexuality, civils unions, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse and gambling and abortion; we are over volunteer organisations and the Bible specifically commands us to help the poor and needy, which means there is far more help going on that is totally unseen and unrecognised. We are not the only ones involved in these things, but without the Biblical mandate to do these things, secularists would have no logical reason and don't have any moral reason to do so...unless they borrow from Christianity, which we are quite happy for them to do.
Regards,
Craig Smith
#1
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4078437a11.html
Answer sought to MPs' prayer
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 31 May 2007
Parliament's daily prayer is in the spotlight as MPs are being asked to decide whether it should be abandoned or rewritten.
Before each sitting day, MPs bow their heads for a prayer in which they vow their loyalty to the Queen, and promise to lay aside their private and personal interests and promote the maintenance of true religion and justice, before ending with reference to "Jesus Christ Our Lord".
Speaker Margaret Wilson has written to MPs asking whether the prayer should be continued and, if so, whether the wording needs an overhaul.
The timing of the move may be seen as provocative, after a backlash from some Christian quarters over Government support for the child-discipline bill.
This week's interfaith dialogue at Waitangi has been marred by protests over a statement that New Zealand has no state religion.
However, there may be little stomach among MPs for a change, with some suggesting that Parliament has more important business.
One Labour MP said the prayer had been recited for more than 100 years, and there seemed to be no pressing need to change it.
National MP Bill English said the prayer should be kept.
"It's part of the tradition of Parliament unbroken since it started, and it's the only time of the day that politicians are forced to think about something besides themselves."
Green MP Keith Locke said the prayer was outdated and did not represent the views of a substantial proportion of society.
#2
This is Helen Clark being interviewed by sodomites and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:
Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?
A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Letter to Kathryn Rich from Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Letter to Kathryn Rich, MP from Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
INSTITUTET FÖR OFFENTLIG OCH INTERNATIONELL RÄTT
Stockholm, May 24, 2007
Uggelviksgatan 9
S-114 27 Stockholm
Tel. 08-21 62 44, 11 49 89
Fax (+) 46-8-21 38 74
Ms Kathryn Rich, MP
Parliament Buildings
Molesworth Street
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
Fax 0064-4 471 25 51
Dear Ms Rich.
The text of your recent speech in Parliament, given May 16, 2007, was brought to my attention and since it shows a number of misunderstandings of the Swedish legal landscape, I have considered it called for to contribute some clarifications. Hopefully, they will mitigate the application in New Zealand of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act, and for such reasons I think this letter should be distributed to all the MP:s.
First of all, however, I categorically reject your characterization of Mrs Ruby Harrold- Claesson as a “false expert” and a “fruit loop, to say the least”. You have fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm, you mention Dr Diesen but there are more of that same breed. On this count, I regret that you have not been aware of my letter of January 11, 2007 to Ms Deborah Coddington which explains the situation, and I feel entitled now to include a copy of that letter for your consideration. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/family-integrity-154-letter-from.html
Secondly, as a matter of fact all the examples of bad treatment of children that you mention in your speech seem to be such as fall under the criminalization of assault and battery in Swedish penal law, a long standing criminalization, antedating the legislation of 1979 which you use as a model for the NZ law reform. Consequently, your examples are simply not relevant.
Thirdly, then, what is the 1979 legislation about? The centrepiece is the phrase which I set out in my letter to Ms Coddington “A child may not be exposed to corporal chastisement or other insulting treatment”. You will perhaps recall that when the matter was introduced in Sweden, there was very little Swedish discussion : “Characteristically for Sweden, public debate on the issue was muted” it was said in Time Magazine, April 2, 1979, p. 24. But a parallel to the Swedish legislation was introduced in neighbouring Finland with a very active, Swedish-speaking elite (1983).
This piece of legislation – Act on the custody of children and visiting rights (lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt : FFS 1983 No 361) – has a provision which is almost verbatim a copy of the Swedish provision, but in Finland it released a public discussion among the lawyers responsible for the drafting of the provision which is quite explicit - in contrast to what took place in Sweden. The main purpose of the act as discussed among the Finnish lawyers was to abolish the line of subordination between parents and children. For such reasons, the family tie could never be a defence in case of opposition between parents and child. This had fargoing consequences. You could not do anything to your child that you could not do to a stranger passerby in the street. That includes all forms of punishment, and it is interesting to note that even the question of libel and slander is being discussed, as indeed ‘psychological violence’ practiced upon a child – e.g. ironizing over a child’s stupid remarks. It is true that one expert thought that court cases of children complaining of being libelled and slandered by their parents were unlikely to occur and so far I have not heard of any such cases, but they certainly were possible the way the legislation was drafted. The following categorical remark of the Government’s legal draftsman, Matti Savolainen, would seem to close the discussion : “There is from now no relationship of subordination, no right to force or punish a child that could be a defence against a prosecution” “The relationship of subordination between parents and children is explicitly abolished.”
This emancipation of the children from the family tie should of course be seen in light of the extremes of 1968 atmosphere which pervaded the 1970s in so many places, and to which the Swedish minority Government of 1978 had fallen prey, with a following in finlandized Finland where Marxism was an accepted philosophy in the hope of getting Soviet approval. In that atmosphere, the family unit was seen as an agent of conservatism, standing in the way of society´s quick transformation into true Socialism, and consequently something to undermined and sabotaged by people of the correct mind.
Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation. It may be an eye-opener to realize that the situations depicted in the enclosed cartoons represent criminal offences under the present Swedish legislation. The cartoonists do not seem to realize this, nor those do it who propagate for copying the Swedish legislation,
Sincerely yours
Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
Internet-anvisningar
Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt
Finns på: http://www.oior.se
Prof. em Jacob W.F. Sundberg nås via e-mail på
sundberg@ioir.se
INSTITUTET FÖR OFFENTLIG OCH INTERNATIONELL RÄTT
Stockholm, May 24, 2007
Uggelviksgatan 9
S-114 27 Stockholm
Tel. 08-21 62 44, 11 49 89
Fax (+) 46-8-21 38 74
Ms Kathryn Rich, MP
Parliament Buildings
Molesworth Street
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
Fax 0064-4 471 25 51
Dear Ms Rich.
The text of your recent speech in Parliament, given May 16, 2007, was brought to my attention and since it shows a number of misunderstandings of the Swedish legal landscape, I have considered it called for to contribute some clarifications. Hopefully, they will mitigate the application in New Zealand of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act, and for such reasons I think this letter should be distributed to all the MP:s.
First of all, however, I categorically reject your characterization of Mrs Ruby Harrold- Claesson as a “false expert” and a “fruit loop, to say the least”. You have fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm, you mention Dr Diesen but there are more of that same breed. On this count, I regret that you have not been aware of my letter of January 11, 2007 to Ms Deborah Coddington which explains the situation, and I feel entitled now to include a copy of that letter for your consideration. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/family-integrity-154-letter-from.html
Secondly, as a matter of fact all the examples of bad treatment of children that you mention in your speech seem to be such as fall under the criminalization of assault and battery in Swedish penal law, a long standing criminalization, antedating the legislation of 1979 which you use as a model for the NZ law reform. Consequently, your examples are simply not relevant.
Thirdly, then, what is the 1979 legislation about? The centrepiece is the phrase which I set out in my letter to Ms Coddington “A child may not be exposed to corporal chastisement or other insulting treatment”. You will perhaps recall that when the matter was introduced in Sweden, there was very little Swedish discussion : “Characteristically for Sweden, public debate on the issue was muted” it was said in Time Magazine, April 2, 1979, p. 24. But a parallel to the Swedish legislation was introduced in neighbouring Finland with a very active, Swedish-speaking elite (1983).
This piece of legislation – Act on the custody of children and visiting rights (lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt : FFS 1983 No 361) – has a provision which is almost verbatim a copy of the Swedish provision, but in Finland it released a public discussion among the lawyers responsible for the drafting of the provision which is quite explicit - in contrast to what took place in Sweden. The main purpose of the act as discussed among the Finnish lawyers was to abolish the line of subordination between parents and children. For such reasons, the family tie could never be a defence in case of opposition between parents and child. This had fargoing consequences. You could not do anything to your child that you could not do to a stranger passerby in the street. That includes all forms of punishment, and it is interesting to note that even the question of libel and slander is being discussed, as indeed ‘psychological violence’ practiced upon a child – e.g. ironizing over a child’s stupid remarks. It is true that one expert thought that court cases of children complaining of being libelled and slandered by their parents were unlikely to occur and so far I have not heard of any such cases, but they certainly were possible the way the legislation was drafted. The following categorical remark of the Government’s legal draftsman, Matti Savolainen, would seem to close the discussion : “There is from now no relationship of subordination, no right to force or punish a child that could be a defence against a prosecution” “The relationship of subordination between parents and children is explicitly abolished.”
This emancipation of the children from the family tie should of course be seen in light of the extremes of 1968 atmosphere which pervaded the 1970s in so many places, and to which the Swedish minority Government of 1978 had fallen prey, with a following in finlandized Finland where Marxism was an accepted philosophy in the hope of getting Soviet approval. In that atmosphere, the family unit was seen as an agent of conservatism, standing in the way of society´s quick transformation into true Socialism, and consequently something to undermined and sabotaged by people of the correct mind.
Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation. It may be an eye-opener to realize that the situations depicted in the enclosed cartoons represent criminal offences under the present Swedish legislation. The cartoonists do not seem to realize this, nor those do it who propagate for copying the Swedish legislation,
Sincerely yours
Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
Internet-anvisningar
Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt
Finns på: http://www.oior.se
Prof. em Jacob W.F. Sundberg nås via e-mail på
sundberg@ioir.se
Monday, 28 May 2007
28 MAY 2007 - Family First - Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency
MEDIA RELEASE
28 MAY 2007
Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency
The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.
In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won’t the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM’s response was
“…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the problem is with those who drink far too much.”
We agree.
Kiwi parents would agree.
“This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Why was the PM’s logic not used in the smacking debate?”
“As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, ‘highly law abiding parents’ are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a ‘fundamental’ law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up.”
“If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent.”
“The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making,” 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
28 MAY 2007
Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency
The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.
In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won’t the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM’s response was
“…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the problem is with those who drink far too much.”
We agree.
Kiwi parents would agree.
“This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Why was the PM’s logic not used in the smacking debate?”
“As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, ‘highly law abiding parents’ are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a ‘fundamental’ law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up.”
“If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent.”
“The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making,” 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
Friday, 25 May 2007
25 May 2007 - Family Integrity #260 -- Royal Assent has been granted
Dear Friends,
The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.
That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.
Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have "re-education" programmes or new "safety" programmes to help children understand their rights. I've talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this "anti-parent" message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn't want to do.
Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more well known. I've attached it for your convenience (I can't add attachmaents so it will be the first comment). Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to -- regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate -- because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don't want others putting the ideas in your children's heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their "homes", some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children's minds with insane ideas. I'm not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise "correction" even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it's not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.
Now, the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,
"I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children's issues using processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems."
I'd have to agree: we've come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National's John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children's issues. Kiro's job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.
Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: "Who's in charge when it comes to children? ...[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare...If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors."
Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After congratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child's life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater."
I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential," says Dr Kiro.
This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively -- and compulsorily -- assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro's Information Hub and can be accessed by various "professionals" such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)
So, just as the Children's Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they've said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy...there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, "They Tyranny of the Small Steps".
We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we've seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don't have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense...and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children's Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That's also part of the social engineering scheme.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.
That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.
Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have "re-education" programmes or new "safety" programmes to help children understand their rights. I've talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this "anti-parent" message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn't want to do.
Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more well known. I've attached it for your convenience (I can't add attachmaents so it will be the first comment). Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to -- regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate -- because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don't want others putting the ideas in your children's heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their "homes", some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children's minds with insane ideas. I'm not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise "correction" even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it's not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.
Now, the Children's Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,
"I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children's issues using processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems."
I'd have to agree: we've come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National's John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children's issues. Kiro's job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.
Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: "Who's in charge when it comes to children? ...[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare...If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors."
Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After congratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child's life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater."
I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential," says Dr Kiro.
This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively -- and compulsorily -- assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro's Information Hub and can be accessed by various "professionals" such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)
So, just as the Children's Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they've said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy...there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, "They Tyranny of the Small Steps".
We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we've seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain't seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don't have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense...and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children's Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That's also part of the social engineering scheme.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Royal assent: 21/5/07
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill will be law 21 June 2007
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline.
(Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill)
Member in charge: Sue Bradford
Type of bill: Member's
Parliament: 47-48
Bill no: 271-3
Introduction: 9/6/05
First reading: 27/7/05
Referred to: Justice and Electoral Committee
Submissions due: 28/2/06
SC report(s): 20/11/06
Consideration of report:
Second reading: 21/2/07
Supplementary Order Paper(s): 86, 95, 102, 107
Committee of the whole House:
(14/3/07)
(28/3/07)
2/5/07
Third reading: 16/5/07
Royal assent: 21/5/07
Act: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (07/18)
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/2/4/b24fba96f2224b1985bc254efac71c63.htm
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence, being inflicted on children in the context of correction and discipline.
(Formerly Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill)
Member in charge: Sue Bradford
Type of bill: Member's
Parliament: 47-48
Bill no: 271-3
Introduction: 9/6/05
First reading: 27/7/05
Referred to: Justice and Electoral Committee
Submissions due: 28/2/06
SC report(s): 20/11/06
Consideration of report:
Second reading: 21/2/07
Supplementary Order Paper(s): 86, 95, 102, 107
Committee of the whole House:
(14/3/07)
(28/3/07)
2/5/07
Third reading: 16/5/07
Royal assent: 21/5/07
Act: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (07/18)
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Hansard - 16 May 2007 - 3rd reading Section 59
Hansard is now up for the 3rd reading:
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm
or more specifically:
Child Abuse—Child, Youth and Family Discretion
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266185
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266195
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266196
Points of Order
Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266198
and
Voting
Correction
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266202
Or this link with coloured photos of MPs:
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/crimes_abolition_of_force_justification/2007/may/16/d01
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm
or more specifically:
Child Abuse—Child, Youth and Family Discretion
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266185
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266195
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266196
Points of Order
Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266198
and
Voting
Correction
http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_05_16.htm#_Toc167266202
Or this link with coloured photos of MPs:
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/bills/crimes_abolition_of_force_justification/2007/may/16/d01
Monday, 21 May 2007
21 May 2007 - Family Integrity #259 -- World Congress of Families
Dear Friends,
Here is some encouraging news about a world wide movement in the RIGHT direction for a change. You can sign up for regular email updates from this crowd.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Press | The Howard Center | World Congress of Families | Family Manifesto | Family Update | Subscribe | Change Address | Unsubscribe
THE WORLD CONGRESS of FAMILIES
PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release: 18 May 2007, Rockford, Illinois
CONTACT: Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or (cell) 513-515-3685 or Don Feder at 508-405-1337
WEBSITES: http://www.profam.org, http;//www.worldcongress.org, http://www.worldcongress.pl or http://www.familymanifesto.net
WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES IV ISSUES WARSAW DECLARATION
At its closing session, the 3,000-plus delegates to World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, May 11-13) endorsed the Warsaw Declaration - a pro-family credo for the 21st century.
With the family under attack in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, delegates felt the urgent need to set forth basic principles for the international pro-family movement.
The Declaration notes that, "The natural family, creation of God, is the fundamental human community, based on the life-long marriage between a man and a woman, in which new individuals are conceived, born and raised."
In the words of the Declaration: "Such families bring to the world today:
* Faithfulness to the Divine truth versus relativism;
* Real love, being the complete and impartial gift of oneself, versus hedonism;
* Faithfulness in love throughout life, versus lack of responsibility toward those closest to us;
* Respect for the life of every human being from conception to natural death, versus discrimination against and extermination of the weakest;
* Joyful responsibility for every child-to-be, versus fear of the child expressed in the contraceptive mentality;
* A moral community in which young generations can grow, versus false ideologies propagating demoralization;
* And, last but not least, the 'springtime' of a civilization of love and life, versus 'demographic winter.'"
The Declaration issued a number of calls, including for:
* "Churches and other religious communities to proclaim the truth about life, marriage, and the family ...."
* "Governing and political bodies to mainstream the family in public policy as a fundamental and inalienable social good, in order to serve their own nations."
* "Health professionals to uphold freedom of conscience and to faithfully safeguard human life, especially when it is weakest and most threatened."
* "Young people to seek wisdom, to choose life, to preserve their hearts and body, and to grow with a focus on truth and faithful love."
World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson noted that, "The Warsaw Declaration does not contain specific policy recommendations but instead offers a broad vision of the natural family as 'the fundamental human community' and creates a framework for pro-family activism."
The complete Warsaw Declaration may be found at http://www.worldcongress.org/WCF4/wcf4.dec.htm.
To schedule an interview with Allan Carlson on the Warsaw Declaration or any other aspect of the recently concluded World Congress of Families IV in Poland, contact Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or 1-800-461-3113.
NOTE:
1. If you would like to receive this email and be added to the Howard Center mailing list: Click Here to Subscribe http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/sub/wcf_update_sub.htm
2. Please invest in our efforts to reach more people with a positive message of family, religion and society. Click Here to Donate Online http://profam.org/THC/xthc_join.htm
3. Please remember the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in your will. Click Here for Information bequests@worldcongress.org
4. If applicable, please add us to your 'approved', 'buddy' or 'safe' list to prevent your ISP's filter from blocking future email messages.
THE HOWARD CENTER for FAMILY, RELIGION & SOCIETY
Copyright © 1997-2007 The Howard Center | contact: webmaster
Here is some encouraging news about a world wide movement in the RIGHT direction for a change. You can sign up for regular email updates from this crowd.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Press | The Howard Center | World Congress of Families | Family Manifesto | Family Update | Subscribe | Change Address | Unsubscribe
THE WORLD CONGRESS of FAMILIES
PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release: 18 May 2007, Rockford, Illinois
CONTACT: Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or (cell) 513-515-3685 or Don Feder at 508-405-1337
WEBSITES: http://www.profam.org, http;//www.worldcongress.org, http://www.worldcongress.pl or http://www.familymanifesto.net
WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES IV ISSUES WARSAW DECLARATION
At its closing session, the 3,000-plus delegates to World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, May 11-13) endorsed the Warsaw Declaration - a pro-family credo for the 21st century.
With the family under attack in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, delegates felt the urgent need to set forth basic principles for the international pro-family movement.
The Declaration notes that, "The natural family, creation of God, is the fundamental human community, based on the life-long marriage between a man and a woman, in which new individuals are conceived, born and raised."
In the words of the Declaration: "Such families bring to the world today:
* Faithfulness to the Divine truth versus relativism;
* Real love, being the complete and impartial gift of oneself, versus hedonism;
* Faithfulness in love throughout life, versus lack of responsibility toward those closest to us;
* Respect for the life of every human being from conception to natural death, versus discrimination against and extermination of the weakest;
* Joyful responsibility for every child-to-be, versus fear of the child expressed in the contraceptive mentality;
* A moral community in which young generations can grow, versus false ideologies propagating demoralization;
* And, last but not least, the 'springtime' of a civilization of love and life, versus 'demographic winter.'"
The Declaration issued a number of calls, including for:
* "Churches and other religious communities to proclaim the truth about life, marriage, and the family ...."
* "Governing and political bodies to mainstream the family in public policy as a fundamental and inalienable social good, in order to serve their own nations."
* "Health professionals to uphold freedom of conscience and to faithfully safeguard human life, especially when it is weakest and most threatened."
* "Young people to seek wisdom, to choose life, to preserve their hearts and body, and to grow with a focus on truth and faithful love."
World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson noted that, "The Warsaw Declaration does not contain specific policy recommendations but instead offers a broad vision of the natural family as 'the fundamental human community' and creates a framework for pro-family activism."
The complete Warsaw Declaration may be found at http://www.worldcongress.org/WCF4/wcf4.dec.htm.
To schedule an interview with Allan Carlson on the Warsaw Declaration or any other aspect of the recently concluded World Congress of Families IV in Poland, contact Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or 1-800-461-3113.
NOTE:
1. If you would like to receive this email and be added to the Howard Center mailing list: Click Here to Subscribe http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/sub/wcf_update_sub.htm
2. Please invest in our efforts to reach more people with a positive message of family, religion and society. Click Here to Donate Online http://profam.org/THC/xthc_join.htm
3. Please remember the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in your will. Click Here for Information bequests@worldcongress.org
4. If applicable, please add us to your 'approved', 'buddy' or 'safe' list to prevent your ISP's filter from blocking future email messages.
THE HOWARD CENTER for FAMILY, RELIGION & SOCIETY
Copyright © 1997-2007 The Howard Center | contact: webmaster
Friday, 18 May 2007
18 May 2007 - Family Intetrity #258 -- Section 59 Petitions campaign: Chch Netball courts, 9am Saturday
Hi Christchurch!
If you can please make the time to meet at The Netball Courts, Hagley Park (off Hagley Ave) Click here for a map at 9:00am on Saturday 19 May , as our plan is to do a big Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) campaign.
Our goal for Saturday is 2,000 signatures (200 full sheets), but we expect to exceed this. Please make this a good turn-out by coming, and telling anyone else you know who would be keen.
Let's make sure that we do get enough signatures to force a referendum, otherwise you'll be looking back wishing, kicking yourself that you didn't do more to get rid of this stupid bill. I will be too.
We plan to start off at the Netball courts, Hagley Park. Later, if people are keen, we will head into the CBD, or find another good spot to get more signatures. There will be plenty of people: you don't have to stand anywhere by yourself, it will be great.
We are going to have some placards, and a table or two.
BRING:
Please try and bring a clipboard, something for people to press on as they sign the petition.
Please also download about 10 or 20 Petition sheets from here, and bring them with you.
Please bring 2 or 3 pens with you as well.
And bring/make some placards if you could. Ideas for signs below. It is important that the wording conveys as much information about what is happening regarding the bill, as is possible.
"The Anti-smacking bill will still criminalise good parents"
"Get rid of Bradford's anti-smacking bill. Sign Petition here"
"Should a smack as a part of good parental discipline be a criminal offense? No!"
"Sign Petition here to force referendum"
Not only will this Saturday be an important day for the CIR, it is a great opportunity to let the rest of Christchurch know that the debate has not died down.
Please forward this email on to anyone who is interested, to spread the word around.
Please reply to theboybiggles@gmail.com if you do intend to come.
Regards,
--
Andy Moore
http://www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED
If you can please make the time to meet at The Netball Courts, Hagley Park (off Hagley Ave) Click here for a map at 9:00am on Saturday 19 May , as our plan is to do a big Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) campaign.
Our goal for Saturday is 2,000 signatures (200 full sheets), but we expect to exceed this. Please make this a good turn-out by coming, and telling anyone else you know who would be keen.
Let's make sure that we do get enough signatures to force a referendum, otherwise you'll be looking back wishing, kicking yourself that you didn't do more to get rid of this stupid bill. I will be too.
We plan to start off at the Netball courts, Hagley Park. Later, if people are keen, we will head into the CBD, or find another good spot to get more signatures. There will be plenty of people: you don't have to stand anywhere by yourself, it will be great.
We are going to have some placards, and a table or two.
BRING:
Please try and bring a clipboard, something for people to press on as they sign the petition.
Please also download about 10 or 20 Petition sheets from here, and bring them with you.
Please bring 2 or 3 pens with you as well.
And bring/make some placards if you could. Ideas for signs below. It is important that the wording conveys as much information about what is happening regarding the bill, as is possible.
"The Anti-smacking bill will still criminalise good parents"
"Get rid of Bradford's anti-smacking bill. Sign Petition here"
"Should a smack as a part of good parental discipline be a criminal offense? No!"
"Sign Petition here to force referendum"
Not only will this Saturday be an important day for the CIR, it is a great opportunity to let the rest of Christchurch know that the debate has not died down.
Please forward this email on to anyone who is interested, to spread the word around.
Please reply to theboybiggles@gmail.com if you do intend to come.
Regards,
--
Andy Moore
http://www.politik.co.nz
section59.blogspot.com
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
GOOD PARENTS WILL BE CRIMINALISED
17 May 2007 - Commissioner For Children - Commissioner wants more integrated investment
We need to be watching for this very dangerous legislation which leads on from the Amendment of Section 59
Commissioner wants more integrated investment
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 6:12 pm
Press Release: Commissioner For Children
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00338.htm
Media Release
17 May 2007
Children’s Commissioner wants more integrated investment in children
Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro congratulates all those politicians who voted to pass the Crimes Amendment Bill (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill and sent a strong and united message that is consistent with a legislative and policy context that prioritises a whole child approach and working towards improved outcomes for children.
"We now need to support this direction towards a better future with monatory policies that support this,” says Dr Kiro.
“Today’s budget does contain some good initiatives for children although its focus is somewhat ad-hoc and not as coherent as the provisions for older people. There should be a clear strategy underpinning investment in children.”
“It is good to see investment in education and better health outcomes for children and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with government to deliver services that support children and families”
“New Zealand children should grow up in a safe and secure family environment, free from all forms of violence. Additional funding of $11.2 million towards programmes to reduce family violence is money well spent.”
“I would like to see more investment in preventing youth offending. Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities and families. It also makes good sense, as it will lead to a better future for all of us. Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”
ENDS
Commissioner wants more integrated investment
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 6:12 pm
Press Release: Commissioner For Children
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00338.htm
Media Release
17 May 2007
Children’s Commissioner wants more integrated investment in children
Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro congratulates all those politicians who voted to pass the Crimes Amendment Bill (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill and sent a strong and united message that is consistent with a legislative and policy context that prioritises a whole child approach and working towards improved outcomes for children.
"We now need to support this direction towards a better future with monatory policies that support this,” says Dr Kiro.
“Today’s budget does contain some good initiatives for children although its focus is somewhat ad-hoc and not as coherent as the provisions for older people. There should be a clear strategy underpinning investment in children.”
“It is good to see investment in education and better health outcomes for children and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with government to deliver services that support children and families”
“New Zealand children should grow up in a safe and secure family environment, free from all forms of violence. Additional funding of $11.2 million towards programmes to reduce family violence is money well spent.”
“I would like to see more investment in preventing youth offending. Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities and families. It also makes good sense, as it will lead to a better future for all of us. Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”
I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential,” says Dr Kiro.
ENDS
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Hall of Shame: the anti-smacking bill passed By John Dierckx in My Journal
http://johndierckx.terapad.com/index.cfm?fa=contentNews.newsDetails&newsID=19202&from=list
Hall of Shame: the anti-smacking bill passed
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Thursday, 17 May 07 - 10:59 AM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Thursday, 17 May 07 - 11:54 AM (GMT +12:00)
On this sunny morning there is a dark cloud in the sky waiting to interfere with the sunshine. The anti-smacking bill cloud that has kept New Zealand occupied in the past period passed last night with 113 votes for and 8 votes against. Copeland resigned for it. I feel sad for New Zealand.
"The signal that this house is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizeable majority of votes in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful and loud message is sent to our communities, loud and clear."
Why does the "House" feel that it is in any position to send any "powerful message" that is representing maybe the result of a political deal but is a far cry from what the public wanted. And isn't this what it is all about? Members of Parliament are representing the people that elected them. So why would parliament need to send a strong message if that message wasn't already clear for those they are representing there. The 80% plus against this ust be wondering why the heck they are still voting?
In no way issues raised against the bill have been addressed appropriately:
Do you now know why the poll results 80% plus against could be ignored?
Do you now understand where the difference is between a correctional tap on the bottom and "violence"? Of course not cause under this law it's all an offence! But we'll leave it to the Police discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute.
Regardless of the overwhelming majority vote I can but feel appalled. A country where a house of representatives can completely ignore those whom they are representing can no longer call itself a democracy. This law is demonstrating clearly that governent is taking over as an absolute ruler rolling out their own agendas regardless of what the public thinks and wants. Where this happens in other countries we speak of dictatorships.
And look what is happening, the bad taste of the passing of this bill has barely gone and I read that:
"Sue Bradford's two-year battle to convince her fellow MPs to pass the anti-smacking bill came to an end last night but the Green MP said the work to persuade parents of the virtues of the law change was just beginning.
The law change will not come into force for a month. Ms Bradford said those four weeks and the period after the bill's enactment should see an intensive education process for parents.
"This is very much the end of the beginning. There are a whole lot of things that need to happen in terms of public education in what this bill actually means. We also need to be monitoring what this legislation means for Child, Youth and Family and for the police."
See what I mean? If this bill was carried by public support, why do we need convincing? And what the heck do I have to think of "an intensive eduction process for parents"?
And that education process just started today with this almost propganda like news coverage in the New Zealand Herald, which we can now conveniently rebrand as the "Voice of the House":
"The High Court in Auckland heard how a boy of 3 years old was subjected to regular beatings using a baseball bat, a vacuum cleaner pipe, rods and a wooden spoon, and punched repeatedly in the face," Mrs Turia said.
"The couple convicted of manslaughter used section 59 of the Crimes Act as their defence, claiming that they only ever used reasonable force. As long as we have people who are prepared to administer beatings so savage that a child's blood splatters on to the ceiling and who are then able to defend that callous brutality as a reasonable punishment, then this nation is in deep trouble."
Yes this nation is in deep trouble where it comes to child abuse but this is the typical propaganda that hasd accompanied the introduction and whole process of this law passing. No one will denie that cases like the above are horrible examples that should not be allowed. But they already were an offence. The bill is not doing anything extra for cases like that, except for taking away the defence of reasonable force. Judges and juries are not silly, for extremes like this no one will think of reasonable force.
But through this bill we have brought every parent in the scope of criminal law, regardless of whether you give a correctional tap on the bottom or use baseball bats, vacuum cleaner pipes, wooden spoons. And let's not leave judgement to independent judges and juries, no no no, that is too much insecurity for a state controlled apparatus: we 'll leave it to the new Parental KGB cause that's what our Police force now will be as a reward for all those abuses of power that have been exposed lately.
And here we are to trust that they will use their discretion wisely?
This is a sad day for New Zealand, we stopped being a democratic society, said goodbye to our rule of law and our autonomy as a parent to raise our children has been eroded one more step further. Marx would have been proud of good old Helen and her mob.
"She'll not be right" if we don't start thinking for ourselves again.
Applause for those who did not give in: Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Judy Turner.
Hall of Shame: the anti-smacking bill passed
By John Dierckx in My Journal
Published: Thursday, 17 May 07 - 10:59 AM (GMT +12:00)
Last Updated: Thursday, 17 May 07 - 11:54 AM (GMT +12:00)
On this sunny morning there is a dark cloud in the sky waiting to interfere with the sunshine. The anti-smacking bill cloud that has kept New Zealand occupied in the past period passed last night with 113 votes for and 8 votes against. Copeland resigned for it. I feel sad for New Zealand.
"The signal that this house is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizeable majority of votes in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful and loud message is sent to our communities, loud and clear."
Why does the "House" feel that it is in any position to send any "powerful message" that is representing maybe the result of a political deal but is a far cry from what the public wanted. And isn't this what it is all about? Members of Parliament are representing the people that elected them. So why would parliament need to send a strong message if that message wasn't already clear for those they are representing there. The 80% plus against this ust be wondering why the heck they are still voting?
In no way issues raised against the bill have been addressed appropriately:
Do you now know why the poll results 80% plus against could be ignored?
Do you now understand where the difference is between a correctional tap on the bottom and "violence"? Of course not cause under this law it's all an offence! But we'll leave it to the Police discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute.
Regardless of the overwhelming majority vote I can but feel appalled. A country where a house of representatives can completely ignore those whom they are representing can no longer call itself a democracy. This law is demonstrating clearly that governent is taking over as an absolute ruler rolling out their own agendas regardless of what the public thinks and wants. Where this happens in other countries we speak of dictatorships.
And look what is happening, the bad taste of the passing of this bill has barely gone and I read that:
"Sue Bradford's two-year battle to convince her fellow MPs to pass the anti-smacking bill came to an end last night but the Green MP said the work to persuade parents of the virtues of the law change was just beginning.
The law change will not come into force for a month. Ms Bradford said those four weeks and the period after the bill's enactment should see an intensive education process for parents.
"This is very much the end of the beginning. There are a whole lot of things that need to happen in terms of public education in what this bill actually means. We also need to be monitoring what this legislation means for Child, Youth and Family and for the police."
See what I mean? If this bill was carried by public support, why do we need convincing? And what the heck do I have to think of "an intensive eduction process for parents"?
And that education process just started today with this almost propganda like news coverage in the New Zealand Herald, which we can now conveniently rebrand as the "Voice of the House":
"The High Court in Auckland heard how a boy of 3 years old was subjected to regular beatings using a baseball bat, a vacuum cleaner pipe, rods and a wooden spoon, and punched repeatedly in the face," Mrs Turia said.
"The couple convicted of manslaughter used section 59 of the Crimes Act as their defence, claiming that they only ever used reasonable force. As long as we have people who are prepared to administer beatings so savage that a child's blood splatters on to the ceiling and who are then able to defend that callous brutality as a reasonable punishment, then this nation is in deep trouble."
Yes this nation is in deep trouble where it comes to child abuse but this is the typical propaganda that hasd accompanied the introduction and whole process of this law passing. No one will denie that cases like the above are horrible examples that should not be allowed. But they already were an offence. The bill is not doing anything extra for cases like that, except for taking away the defence of reasonable force. Judges and juries are not silly, for extremes like this no one will think of reasonable force.
But through this bill we have brought every parent in the scope of criminal law, regardless of whether you give a correctional tap on the bottom or use baseball bats, vacuum cleaner pipes, wooden spoons. And let's not leave judgement to independent judges and juries, no no no, that is too much insecurity for a state controlled apparatus: we 'll leave it to the new Parental KGB cause that's what our Police force now will be as a reward for all those abuses of power that have been exposed lately.
And here we are to trust that they will use their discretion wisely?
This is a sad day for New Zealand, we stopped being a democratic society, said goodbye to our rule of law and our autonomy as a parent to raise our children has been eroded one more step further. Marx would have been proud of good old Helen and her mob.
"She'll not be right" if we don't start thinking for ourselves again.
Applause for those who did not give in: Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, Winston Peters, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Judy Turner.
17 May 2007 - Focus On The Family - Lobby group offers help through smacking mess
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00294.htm
Lobby group offers help through smacking mess
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 11:01 am
Press Release: Focus On The Family
Focus on the Family offer Government & parents help through smacking mess
Focus on the Family New Zealand believe that its time for the Government to seek the assistance of family-help organisations, in an effort to help parents deal with one of the most controversial laws to affect parents in this country.
Sheryl Savill, the author of the Citizens Initiated Referendum, and Programme Administrator for Focus on the Family, says that far from bringing a clear answer to the smacking issue, the new law creates confusion and many unanswered questions for parents in New Zealand.
“If we smack our children we will be breaking the law…or will we?” Asks Mrs. Savill, “And that’s why we believe that the petition calling for a referendum on this issue, at the next election is still needed. I urge everyone to continue collecting signatures for both petitions.”
The confusion suggests that the answer is not simply through the State legislating change. But, that the solutions will ultimately be found in parent education.
Tim Sisarich, Executive Director of Focus on the Family (NZ) believes that its time to turn our attention to helping good parents overcome the murky legislation.
Although the intent is to give Police discretion, what does that mean? And how will it actually work? What role will CYFS have in all of this? Will they still have the power to come into our homes and remove our children if they suspect that smacking has been used to correct offensive or disruptive behavior?
Mr. Sisarich says that “With all the debate that has been flying around, parents are confused and don’t know where they stand.” He goes on to say, “That while many of us as parents don’t agree with the new legislation, we need to look at how we can best help families thrive in this new environment.”
According to Mr. Sisarich a copy of Focus on the Family’s parenting resource, ‘Essentials of Discipline’ has been sent to all the key players of this debate.
“Focus on the Family New Zealand believes so strongly in empowering, educating and equipping parents in their role of growing great kids, that we want every parent to have access to this type of resource. This will give parents the best possible tools in the area of healthy discipline.” And he says that, “We look forward to being able to work alongside Government in a bid to put the focus on the family.”
Lobby group offers help through smacking mess
Thursday, 17 May 2007, 11:01 am
Press Release: Focus On The Family
Focus on the Family offer Government & parents help through smacking mess
Focus on the Family New Zealand believe that its time for the Government to seek the assistance of family-help organisations, in an effort to help parents deal with one of the most controversial laws to affect parents in this country.
Sheryl Savill, the author of the Citizens Initiated Referendum, and Programme Administrator for Focus on the Family, says that far from bringing a clear answer to the smacking issue, the new law creates confusion and many unanswered questions for parents in New Zealand.
“If we smack our children we will be breaking the law…or will we?” Asks Mrs. Savill, “And that’s why we believe that the petition calling for a referendum on this issue, at the next election is still needed. I urge everyone to continue collecting signatures for both petitions.”
The confusion suggests that the answer is not simply through the State legislating change. But, that the solutions will ultimately be found in parent education.
Tim Sisarich, Executive Director of Focus on the Family (NZ) believes that its time to turn our attention to helping good parents overcome the murky legislation.
Although the intent is to give Police discretion, what does that mean? And how will it actually work? What role will CYFS have in all of this? Will they still have the power to come into our homes and remove our children if they suspect that smacking has been used to correct offensive or disruptive behavior?
Mr. Sisarich says that “With all the debate that has been flying around, parents are confused and don’t know where they stand.” He goes on to say, “That while many of us as parents don’t agree with the new legislation, we need to look at how we can best help families thrive in this new environment.”
According to Mr. Sisarich a copy of Focus on the Family’s parenting resource, ‘Essentials of Discipline’ has been sent to all the key players of this debate.
“Focus on the Family New Zealand believes so strongly in empowering, educating and equipping parents in their role of growing great kids, that we want every parent to have access to this type of resource. This will give parents the best possible tools in the area of healthy discipline.” And he says that, “We look forward to being able to work alongside Government in a bid to put the focus on the family.”
17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #257 -- A very brief summary
All parents who correct their children will from now on be committing a criminal act, and liable to prosecution.
Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford's bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.
The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.
Don't be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don't believe me.
'Nothing' [in the rest of the bill] 'or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.'
Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.
The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.
It's now the people against Parliament.
by Renton, Porirua
Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford's bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.
The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.
Don't be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don't believe me.
'Nothing' [in the rest of the bill] 'or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.'
Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.
The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.
It's now the people against Parliament.
by Renton, Porirua
17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #256 -- NZ to be declared religiously neutral
Dear Friends,
Hard on the heels of radical legislation passed yesterday which will make parents criminals for correcting their children, our Prime Minister is now going to officially push our Christian heritage off the stage.
Attached for your information.
http://www.christiannation.org.nz/
In Christ's service,
Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Fax +64 6 357-4389
craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.hef.org.nz
Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Hard on the heels of radical legislation passed yesterday which will make parents criminals for correcting their children, our Prime Minister is now going to officially push our Christian heritage off the stage.
Attached for your information.
http://www.christiannation.org.nz/
In Christ's service,
Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Fax +64 6 357-4389
craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.hef.org.nz
Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #255 -- Legal opinion from Family First
Dear Friends,
I'll just forward this from a Family First press release:
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking - despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
I'll just forward this from a Family First press release:
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking - despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
17 May 2007 - Family Integrity #254 -- Send thanks
Dear Friends,
Please do take a moment to send your thanks to the following MPs who voted against the bill.
United Future had a meltdown, losing one of its three MPs, Gordon Copeland, who resigned over this bill and is now an Independent, as is Taito Phillip Field (who resigned from Labour). Judy Turner voted against the bill and contrary to her party's leader, Peter Dunne.
ACT's two MPs voted against the bill...the only party to wholly vote against it.
NZ First was split, these 3 voting against the bill, the other 4 voting for it.
The most disappointing of all is National, all of whom voted for this bill. I feel utterly betrayed by them.
However, these 8 listed here deserve our warm thanks.
Gordon Copeland, Independent: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Taito Phillip Field, Independent: taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
Rodney Hide, ACT: rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
Mark, Ron Mark, NZ First: ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz
Pita Paraone, NZ First: pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz
Rt Hon Winston Peters, NZ First: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Heather Roy, ACT: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz
Judy Turner, United Future: judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Please do take a moment to send your thanks to the following MPs who voted against the bill.
United Future had a meltdown, losing one of its three MPs, Gordon Copeland, who resigned over this bill and is now an Independent, as is Taito Phillip Field (who resigned from Labour). Judy Turner voted against the bill and contrary to her party's leader, Peter Dunne.
ACT's two MPs voted against the bill...the only party to wholly vote against it.
NZ First was split, these 3 voting against the bill, the other 4 voting for it.
The most disappointing of all is National, all of whom voted for this bill. I feel utterly betrayed by them.
However, these 8 listed here deserve our warm thanks.
Gordon Copeland, Independent: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Taito Phillip Field, Independent: taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
Rodney Hide, ACT: rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
Mark, Ron Mark, NZ First: ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz
Pita Paraone, NZ First: pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz
Rt Hon Winston Peters, NZ First: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Heather Roy, ACT: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz
Judy Turner, United Future: judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
17 May 2007 - The Dominion Post - New law won't stop Bob from smacking
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4062034a6479.html
New law won't stop Bob from smacking
PATRICK CREWDSON - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 May 2007
Bob McCoskrie smacks his children, and Sue Bradford's law change won't make him stop.
The national director of Family First New Zealand, a vociferous opponent of the Green MP's bill to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act, said the "confusing legislation" that passed last night would not changed the way he disciplined his three children - just the way he described it.
"I'll continue to do it in a reasonable way and I'll continue to do it as a back-up when other non-physical methods of discipline haven't worked."
After obtaining an opinion from Queen's Counsel Grant Illingworth, Family First cautioned parents yesterday not to incriminate themselves to police.
Mr McCoskrie said that, under the amendment, parents could still use reasonable force for the purpose of prevention, but not for correction.
"What the QC is saying is that if you ever do get prosecuted for giving a light smack, simply say it was for the purpose of preventing bad behaviour, not correcting bad behaviour, which shows just how ridiculous the law is."
Supporters of the bill relaxed yesterday as it passed with greater political support than initially expected.
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was hugely relieved.
She had supported outright repeal of section 59 and had some reservations about how the amendment would be interpreted, but was happy a compromise had been reached to "allay the fears that had been whipped up among parents around criminalisation".
Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said he was delighted, but the challenge now was to ensure parents were equipped to deal with behavioural problems without resorting to force.
In a rearguard action against the amendment, opponents yesterday took out full-page newspaper advertisements seeking signatures to force a referendum on child discipline at the next election.
The advertisements warned parents that they would be criminalised if they smacked their children, and said police had confirmed they would have to investigate any complaints made against parents who smacked or put their children in time out.
But Police Association president Greg O'Connor said he had been misquoted.
Police would continue to investigate complaints of assault - just as they always had - but putting a child in time-out would not land a parent in jail.
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #253 -- Post Mortem
A truly sad day for New Zealand.
The final vote in Parliament was 113 in favour and 8 against the bill to criminalise parents by making the correction of children a criminal offense, a subset of assault, worth as much as two years in jail.
The passage of this bill has tipped New Zealand into the cauldron of socialist totalitarianism. This is more sophisticated than the old USSR technique of ruling by sheer terror and sealing the borders. This new version weakens all resolve by offering every financial support, even for the most irresponsible of lifestyles (the excesses of the social welfare system), and then it controls children's affections by the intense indoctrination of the compulsory secular school system and ease of access to all manner of inappropriate viewing and listening media, and then it controls parents by threatening through CYFS and other interventionist bureaucracies to take away even their few hours of caring for their children each day, after the schools have already robbed them of their affection and loyalty.
“If the major political parties had allowed a conscience vote on this bill as originally promised, the bill would have been dead and buried at the 2nd reading,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “It is tragic that while the government turns a blind eye to the major problems of gang violence, drunken teen parties, the ‘P’ epidemic, violence in schools, violence towards police, gambling addiction, housing concerns, and breakdown in families, they have found plenty of energy and time to pass a law that targets good parents doing a great job.”
Bob forgot to mention the abortion industry which encourages mothers to pre-meditate upon killing their own children and the assisted suicide and euthanasia movements which want to change the public's attitude toward death from the curse that it is, brought in as a result of the original sin of our original parents, Adam and Eve, to a welcomed friend, one that would soon be introduced to babies born with even the most minor defects, including the non-preferred gender, and into hospital practice for the helpless, the cantakerous, the demented. And let's not forget the porn industry, which is defiling more and more school children on and off campus. All these things promote a culture of death and despondency, purposelessness and meaninglessness. But they foment dysfunction, and that helps fire up a perpetual motion and income-generating circus of social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, counsellors, foster agencies, foster homes, women's refuges, politicians and innumerable child-advocacy groups, all feeding off this increased dysfunction. Sadly, none of these groups ever focus on working themselves out of a job.
A Family First press release tells how a leading QC has recommended to parents that, now Bradford's bill has passed, they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour. This new Section 59 makes child correction a criminal act. Grant Illingworth QC said, “The difficulty...is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child [actions allowed by this new Section 59]. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
Mr Illingworth went on to say that this is of enormous importance, for if a parent intended to "correct" a child's disruptive and offensive behaviour, and this intention came to light in the course of an investigation, that parent would have no defense against a charge of criminal assault, even though the force used would appear identical to that which another parent might use simply to prevent the continuation of disruptive and offensive behaviour.
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
What Now?
One must evaluate one's options in the light of whether one's child rearing practices are likely to be incriminating and whether they are likely to come to the notice of either CYFS or the Police.
A police officer informed me last night that they will have to investigate any reported case of force used to correct. This will obviously be an interpretation on the part of whoever makes the complaint. But because this kind of complaint will fall under the category of "domestic violence", and the police have a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence, they will have to investigate. Remember, this includes a lot more than mere smacking. It is about any use of force: taking a child's arm, hand, shoulder to direct them in a certain direction when disruption, offense, criminal activity or harm are not at issue; confinement against the child's will; requiring dress and grooming codes to conform to your tastes when the child objects and a large section of society would find nothing offensive in the child's choices; and prohibiting your children from associating with persons or visiting premises about which you do not approve but which are not illegal or obviously harmful.
Parenting must start early. Train your children to think and believe and react as you do from day one. Do not expose them too much or too early to worldviews and ways of which you do not approve if you do not want them to develop a taste for them or a desire to try them out. Sending one's children to public schools takes on a very serious set of implications as a result....you must be prepared to have your children adopt ways of thinking, dressing, grooming, speaking, obeying, disobeying, attitudes and values that are not your own, for you will be virtually powerless to correct them. If anyone knows how to correct error or misguided or inappropriate or unhealthy or unwholesome or undesirable or ways that are just plain wrong....if anyone knows how to effect correction without the use of any kind of force, many others would like to hear about it. It appears to me that parents will be reduced to advisors of autonomous children. From my reading of UN documents and particularly of Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim, 2006), that is precisely the objective of those behind this bill.
Some have suggested we get the Governor-General to withhold the Royal Assent.
I clearly recall that then GG Sir Paul Reeves signed into law a bill that forbids the GG from withholding the Royal Assent. He was GG from 1985 to 1990. Actually, I've had a look around the internet and can find no evidence of this, although I clearly remember it being discussed in the news of the day.
I did find this however:
"The last time a Monarch refused assent to a Bill (no Governor or Governor-General has ever done so) was during the reign of Queen Anne in 1708." (http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/2006/09/telling-lies-for-her-majesty-royal.html) (There is some very informative discussion on this website.)
"The Queen reigns, the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives" This is the simple rule that keeps things ticking along. Until the Parliament votes itself dictatorial powers and abolishes elections, the GG will not withhold Royal Assent.
From: http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=167, speech by Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys, 24 May 1996:
(Start Quote)
Constitutionalists differ as to what these powers [of the Governor-General] might be. I will give you five. There is no doubt about the first. Some would doubt the last. The five are:
(1) to appoint a Prime Minister;
(2) to dismiss a Prime Minister;
(3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament;
(4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and
(5) to refuse assent to legislation.
Examples of the use of all but the first of these powers are rare, and are always controversial. Indeed, the very rarity of their exercise gives rise to contentions that they have ceased to exist at all. That is particularly true of the last of them.
(End Quote)
So it would appear that we can forget thinking about that route.
What are some other alternatives?
I have already received copies of letters people have sent to MPs stating clearly that they will not obey this bill if it is passed into law. This is one way to react: simply disregard the law and be prepared to suffer the consequences. These include prosecution and a criminal record. Such a record will bar you from travel to some overseas destinations....the USA, for example, will not issue a visa to people with criminal records. It will bar you from certain occupations and job/career opportunities. But the most frightening prospect is having CYFS take your children. This will break your heart, crush your spirit, drain your assets and drive you deep into debt. And it is likely your children will also suffer REAL abuse at the hands of CYFS and foster homes.
Another is to decide to modify your child-rearing practices to what you think the law may be saying. This is extremely difficult for nobody knows what it says. It will require a number of test cases to establish precedents and definitions. Each test case, I would suggest, will represent another family chewed up and destroyed by this process.
Another would be to become very discreet about how you operate, that you train your children not to talk about anything that goes on or is discussed within your home. (Oh, darn....how does one train a child...would that not include correction and force?) You may want to monitor all your children's conversations. Again, children spending so much time at school, away from your guidance and influence, takes on a new perspective. Teachers, of course, will be instituting new safety programmes and children's rights programmes which will spell out to children what their parents can and cannot do. The legislation that was just passed is extremely vague, but the programmes in the schools will not be vague: they will be clear and extreme. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 of June 2006, outlines how all "academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups", etc., must be recruited in the monitoring of the implementation of laws such as the one just passed. This document equates any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, with violence, abuse, cruel and degrading punishment. (It is a fascinating read, 17 pages, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.)
One may also consider emigration to Australia. NZ passport holders only need to get on a plane. Once there you can stay as long as you like and take up employment immediately. There are only some social welfare benefits that would not kick in till you've been there for two years. Native English speakers can get jobs teaching English in local schools in many places in the world with few or no qualifications at all. I know people who have done exactly this in China, South Korea and Turkey. Those countries are not likely to have such insane legislation passed as we've just had any time soon. The USA and Canada are also possibilities. The USA has a lot of red tape to cut through to gain residency, but untold numbers of Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Americans have been pouring across the border for over 30 years virtually unchecked and seem to get permanent residency and jobs with little difficulty.
I'll have more information on Australia in another post soon.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
16 MAY 2007 - Family First - “I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” - Advice to Parents
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00286.htm
MEDIA RELEASE
16 MAY 2007
“I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” - Advice to Parents
A leading QC has recommended to parents that they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour once the Anti-Smacking law is passed in Parliament.
“Because good parents who use reasonable force to effectively correct offensive or disruptive behaviour or defiance from a child will be exposed to criminal liability and investigation under the new anti-smacking law, it is essential that they receive good advice and protection,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
MEDIA RELEASE
16 MAY 2007
“I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” - Advice to Parents
A leading QC has recommended to parents that they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour once the Anti-Smacking law is passed in Parliament.
“Because good parents who use reasonable force to effectively correct offensive or disruptive behaviour or defiance from a child will be exposed to criminal liability and investigation under the new anti-smacking law, it is essential that they receive good advice and protection,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
16 May 2007 - Stuff - Copeland quitting over smacking bill
Copeland quitting over smacking bill
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4061797a10.html
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 16 May 2007
CLASH OF IDEAS: See link for photo: Gordon Copeland debating the child discipline bill outside Parliament earlier this year. It is believed the United Future MP is quitting the party as he does not agree with its stance on the issue.
Related Links
UPDATED REPORT: The government has been dealt a blow on the eve of the budget, with United Future MP Gordon Copeland expected to announce today he is resigning from his party in protest at the so-called anti-smacking bill.
NZPA understands that Mr Copeland is leaving over Green MP Sue Bradford member's bill to remove from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of "reasonable force" to correct a child.
Mr Copeland, a Christian, has always opposed the legislation and while he voted for an amendment stating police had discretion not to prosecute inconsequential complaints he felt the bill still made criminals of parents who smacked their children.
He would form the party with former colleague Larry Baldock who has been running a petition against the Bradford bill.
The party would be called Future New Zealand - the name of the Christian party which the United Party previously merged with.
When Parliament sat at 2pm National Party deputy leader Bill English questioned Prime Minister Helen Clark about Mr Copeland's decision.
He said the Government could now only rely on 59 votes in the 121 MP Parliament.
"What assurances can she give as the leader of the current coalition of Labour, United Future and New Zealand First that the Government commands a majority in this House?" he asked.
The Government's only formal coalition partner is the Progressive's Jim Anderton. It has support agreements with New Zealand First and United Future and a cooperation agreement with the Greens under which that party abstains on confidence and supply issues.
The Government may find it harder passing some legislation but its confidence and supply arrangements are secure as they were when Taito Phillip Field became an independent.
Miss Clark said that the Government continued to enjoy the confidence of the House.
- With NZPA
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4061797a10.html
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 16 May 2007
CLASH OF IDEAS: See link for photo: Gordon Copeland debating the child discipline bill outside Parliament earlier this year. It is believed the United Future MP is quitting the party as he does not agree with its stance on the issue.
Related Links
UPDATED REPORT: The government has been dealt a blow on the eve of the budget, with United Future MP Gordon Copeland expected to announce today he is resigning from his party in protest at the so-called anti-smacking bill.
NZPA understands that Mr Copeland is leaving over Green MP Sue Bradford member's bill to remove from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of "reasonable force" to correct a child.
Mr Copeland, a Christian, has always opposed the legislation and while he voted for an amendment stating police had discretion not to prosecute inconsequential complaints he felt the bill still made criminals of parents who smacked their children.
He would form the party with former colleague Larry Baldock who has been running a petition against the Bradford bill.
The party would be called Future New Zealand - the name of the Christian party which the United Party previously merged with.
When Parliament sat at 2pm National Party deputy leader Bill English questioned Prime Minister Helen Clark about Mr Copeland's decision.
He said the Government could now only rely on 59 votes in the 121 MP Parliament.
"What assurances can she give as the leader of the current coalition of Labour, United Future and New Zealand First that the Government commands a majority in this House?" he asked.
The Government's only formal coalition partner is the Progressive's Jim Anderton. It has support agreements with New Zealand First and United Future and a cooperation agreement with the Greens under which that party abstains on confidence and supply issues.
The Government may find it harder passing some legislation but its confidence and supply arrangements are secure as they were when Taito Phillip Field became an independent.
Miss Clark said that the Government continued to enjoy the confidence of the House.
- With NZPA
16 May 2007 - tvnz - MP quits over anti-smacking bill
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/1125832
MP quits over anti-smacking bill
May 16, 2007
United Future MP Gordon Copeland is set to quit United Future over the anti-smacking bill.
The decision leaves the government in a precarious situation. The recent defection of Taito Philip Field and now Copeland leaves the government in a true minority.
It is understood the MP is planning to start a new political party with a former one-term United Future MP Larry Baldock.
The catalyst for his departure is the anti-smacking bill, which will get its final reading on Wednesday. Both men vehemently oppose the amendment watering down the bill.
Copeland will stay on as an independent
Earlier this weka another United Future MP, Judy Turner, said she would oppose the anti-smacking bill when it had its final reading in parliament.
While she believes the compromise amendment reinforcing discretionary powers for police was a good move she is concerned it doesn't also apply to Child Youth and Family.
Turner says not enough has changed at CYF to reassure her parents are safe from prosecution for lightly smacking their children.
MP quits over anti-smacking bill
May 16, 2007
United Future MP Gordon Copeland is set to quit United Future over the anti-smacking bill.
The decision leaves the government in a precarious situation. The recent defection of Taito Philip Field and now Copeland leaves the government in a true minority.
It is understood the MP is planning to start a new political party with a former one-term United Future MP Larry Baldock.
The catalyst for his departure is the anti-smacking bill, which will get its final reading on Wednesday. Both men vehemently oppose the amendment watering down the bill.
Copeland will stay on as an independent
Earlier this weka another United Future MP, Judy Turner, said she would oppose the anti-smacking bill when it had its final reading in parliament.
While she believes the compromise amendment reinforcing discretionary powers for police was a good move she is concerned it doesn't also apply to Child Youth and Family.
Turner says not enough has changed at CYF to reassure her parents are safe from prosecution for lightly smacking their children.
16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #252 -- The Petition
Dear Friends,
Also: Be sure to sign, if you haven't already, the petition to get this issue to a national referendum at the next election. You'll find the petition in today's (Wednesday 16 May) NZ herald, Dom Post, Christchurch press and Otago Daily Times.
Please also snip these petitions out of the paper and go to your neighbours and at least fill in the 10 signatures of both parts of the petition. Then send it in to the address indicated.
If we get 300,000 signatures on this petition (and we're well over half way already) by Feb or March next year, 2008, it WILL BE an election issue, forcing the MPs to revisit this bill regardless of how the vote goes today.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Also: Be sure to sign, if you haven't already, the petition to get this issue to a national referendum at the next election. You'll find the petition in today's (Wednesday 16 May) NZ herald, Dom Post, Christchurch press and Otago Daily Times.
Please also snip these petitions out of the paper and go to your neighbours and at least fill in the 10 signatures of both parts of the petition. Then send it in to the address indicated.
If we get 300,000 signatures on this petition (and we're well over half way already) by Feb or March next year, 2008, it WILL BE an election issue, forcing the MPs to revisit this bill regardless of how the vote goes today.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #251 -- Section 59 - Please send one last email by 2:00pm today
Greetings All
This is our last email to you before the vote for the most extreme anti-smacking law in the world (according to Dr Robert E Larzelere).
There will be a two hour discussion before the vote today.
I spoke to three different offices in Parliament to try to determine when the discussion and vote will be. It wont start before 4:00pm and may not start until after the tea break 6-7:30pm.
You can listen to the debate and to the voting here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/parliament
While talking to one office, the secretary told me that of all emails the MPs have received, they have consistently been 80/90% against the repeal or amendment of Section 59. Around the time of the first March on Parliament they received about 30 emails from those who are for repeal. So even since the amendment the emails are consistently against repeal. At the time that I was talking to the secretary she looked at the inbox of an MP and all 16 emails were against repeal.
"It's the people against Parliament now!"
1. From: Ron Mark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: Most extreme legislation
Dear Correspondent,
Mr Mark has voted against the bill at 1st and 2nd readings - he sees it as interference in people's lives to an unnecessary degree. He also does
not believe it will have the effect of reducing real child abuse, which he abhors. He voted for the amendment at the committee stage because, as it was evident the bill is going to pass, it was better to soften it than have it pass unadulterated. Having said that, however, he believes the amendment to be a nonsense. His intention is still to vote against the Bill in its entirety at the third reading this week, as he is fundamentally opposed to it. Regards, Jan Dyer,
Executive Assistant to Ron Mark MP, New Zealand First, Ph +64 4 4706693, Fax +64 4 4712414
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/15-may-2007-act-hide-calls-on-helen.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Here is the Investigate link again.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
And here is a link for some updates:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. You might like to send this whole article http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html to the MPs - Maybe if they get it 50, 100 or more times then they might read it before the debate and discussion (click on the link then copy and paste in a new email and copy the link too, then send to all the MPs) Here is a snippet from the article:
Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says "...the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties .... Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents." Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send one last email before 2pm today. Tomorrow will be too late.
Please forward this email to your friends, neighbours and relations, any list that you are on and your Church email list. Thank you
Regards
Craig and Barbara Smith
P O Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
1. Lobbying tools
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links today:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
or
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
You can read much commentary about it here:
Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Re-written Section 59 -- Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please get your friends, neighbours and relations also lobbying the MPs. The fight must go on in the name of Freedom for families!
Please forward this email to your friends, neighbours, relations, Church email list, club email lists etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is our last email to you before the vote for the most extreme anti-smacking law in the world (according to Dr Robert E Larzelere).
There will be a two hour discussion before the vote today.
I spoke to three different offices in Parliament to try to determine when the discussion and vote will be. It wont start before 4:00pm and may not start until after the tea break 6-7:30pm.
You can listen to the debate and to the voting here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/parliament
While talking to one office, the secretary told me that of all emails the MPs have received, they have consistently been 80/90% against the repeal or amendment of Section 59. Around the time of the first March on Parliament they received about 30 emails from those who are for repeal. So even since the amendment the emails are consistently against repeal. At the time that I was talking to the secretary she looked at the inbox of an MP and all 16 emails were against repeal.
Let us all send one last email to the MPs even if it is just "Please Keep Section 59" or "Section 59 - Vote with your Conscience" in the Subject line. The MPs need to know that we are against this right up to the end. That the 83% of us have not been swayed by Key, Clark and Bradford. The amendment is no protection for good parents. It is the world's most extreme anti-smacking law. If the MPs want to be in Parliament at the next election then they should vote against this Bill. Information on sending emails is at the end of this email.
"It's the people against Parliament now!"
1. From: Ron Mark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: Most extreme legislation
Dear Correspondent,
Mr Mark has voted against the bill at 1st and 2nd readings - he sees it as interference in people's lives to an unnecessary degree. He also does
not believe it will have the effect of reducing real child abuse, which he abhors. He voted for the amendment at the committee stage because, as it was evident the bill is going to pass, it was better to soften it than have it pass unadulterated. Having said that, however, he believes the amendment to be a nonsense. His intention is still to vote against the Bill in its entirety at the third reading this week, as he is fundamentally opposed to it. Regards, Jan Dyer,
Executive Assistant to Ron Mark MP, New Zealand First, Ph +64 4 4706693, Fax +64 4 4712414
At the moment this is how the MPs intend to vote unless they change their minds at the last moment:National, Labour, the Greens the Maori Party, and Progressive now support the bill while NZ First (at least 2 against) and United Future (2 against) are split. ACT's two MPs and Taito-Field will vote against the bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/15-may-2007-act-hide-calls-on-helen.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Here is the Investigate link again.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
And here is a link for some updates:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. You might like to send this whole article http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html to the MPs - Maybe if they get it 50, 100 or more times then they might read it before the debate and discussion (click on the link then copy and paste in a new email and copy the link too, then send to all the MPs) Here is a snippet from the article:
Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says "...the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties .... Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents." Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send one last email before 2pm today. Tomorrow will be too late.
Please forward this email to your friends, neighbours and relations, any list that you are on and your Church email list. Thank you
Regards
Craig and Barbara Smith
P O Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
1. Lobbying tools
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links today:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
or
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
You can read much commentary about it here:
Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Re-written Section 59 -- Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please get your friends, neighbours and relations also lobbying the MPs. The fight must go on in the name of Freedom for families!
Please forward this email to your friends, neighbours, relations, Church email list, club email lists etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 May 2007 - Family Integrity #250 -- May God have mercy
Dear Friends,
Today our Parliamentarians vote on a bill to make it a criminal offense for parents to correct their own children. The term "correct" is not defined. It will make any act of physical discipline, training, chastisement and possibly much more into a criminal act of assault, worth as much as two years in jail, regardless of how light or reasonable the force used, and regardless of the child's act of disobedience or destructiveness or dishonesty or disrespect, and regardless of any other circumstances. It is not even clear if it is only in relation to physical force...it could apply to moral force, verbal force, intimidation, removal of privileges, grounding, time out.....nobody knows since none of these things have been defined or delineated. The Bill appears certain to pass, barring a last minute miracle.
All parents in this country will become criminals who are simply awaiting the time when they will come to the notice of the police (teacher asking children at school which of them gets smacked, an angry child or nosey neighbour or vindictive relation reporting, etc.). We talked to a police officer yesterday who confirmed to us that any such report they will have to act on as it will be considered an act of "domestic violence", a category of crime for which the police have a zero tolerance policy.
Please email or phone your MP one more time today. May God have mercy on us all.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Today our Parliamentarians vote on a bill to make it a criminal offense for parents to correct their own children. The term "correct" is not defined. It will make any act of physical discipline, training, chastisement and possibly much more into a criminal act of assault, worth as much as two years in jail, regardless of how light or reasonable the force used, and regardless of the child's act of disobedience or destructiveness or dishonesty or disrespect, and regardless of any other circumstances. It is not even clear if it is only in relation to physical force...it could apply to moral force, verbal force, intimidation, removal of privileges, grounding, time out.....nobody knows since none of these things have been defined or delineated. The Bill appears certain to pass, barring a last minute miracle.
All parents in this country will become criminals who are simply awaiting the time when they will come to the notice of the police (teacher asking children at school which of them gets smacked, an angry child or nosey neighbour or vindictive relation reporting, etc.). We talked to a police officer yesterday who confirmed to us that any such report they will have to act on as it will be considered an act of "domestic violence", a category of crime for which the police have a zero tolerance policy.
Please email or phone your MP one more time today. May God have mercy on us all.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
Our Home....Our Castle
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
15 May 2007 - ACT - Hide Calls on Helen Clark and John Key to Allow Free Vote on Anti-Smacking Bill
Hide Calls on Helen Clark and John Key to Allow Free Vote on Anti-Smacking Bill
from http://www.act.org.nz/hide_calls_on_helen_clark_and_john_key_to_allow_free_vote_on_anti_smacking_bill
15 May 2007
ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill.
"It's all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it's wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.
"I don't believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there's only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.
"Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
"The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.
"Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford's Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.
"It's an atrocious Bill. That's why we need a free vote" said Rodney Hide.
ENDS
To access a copy of Rodney Hide's letter to Helen Clark and John Key go to http://www.act.org.nz/files/m/downloads/Letter%20To%20Clark%20And%20Key.pdf.
RODNEY HIDE MP
Leader ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472
http://www.RodneyHide.com
http://www.act.org.nz
May 1407 Clark and Key
14 May 2007
Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings
Dear Helen and John
On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted
Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.
The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.
In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.
John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
“If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so
completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?”
It’s a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford’s Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.
John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn’t it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.
Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday: “…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there...”
If it is truly the “overwhelming majority” of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don’t, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.
ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That’s ridiculous. The Bill’s purpose makes this clear. It is 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.”
Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.
New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn’t change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way.
All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.
The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It’s simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.
I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus’ a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand
from http://www.act.org.nz/hide_calls_on_helen_clark_and_john_key_to_allow_free_vote_on_anti_smacking_bill
15 May 2007
ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill.
"It's all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it's wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.
"I don't believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there's only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.
"Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."
"The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.
"Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford's Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.
"It's an atrocious Bill. That's why we need a free vote" said Rodney Hide.
ENDS
To access a copy of Rodney Hide's letter to Helen Clark and John Key go to http://www.act.org.nz/files/m/downloads/Letter%20To%20Clark%20And%20Key.pdf.
RODNEY HIDE MP
Leader ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472
http://www.RodneyHide.com
http://www.act.org.nz
May 1407 Clark and Key
14 May 2007
Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings
Dear Helen and John
On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted
Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.
The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.
In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.
John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
“If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so
completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?”
It’s a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford’s Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.
John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn’t it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.
Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday: “…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there...”
If it is truly the “overwhelming majority” of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don’t, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.
ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That’s ridiculous. The Bill’s purpose makes this clear. It is 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.”
Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.
New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn’t change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way.
All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.
The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It’s simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.
I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus’ a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand
Monday, 14 May 2007
14 May 2007 - Family Integrity #249 -- Section 59: Police and CYFs are not to be trusted
Greetings
Only two days until the vote on Wednesday 16.
Here is some URGENT reading for you which clarifies some of our concerns about Section 59. We can't trust the Police or CYFs as our Government plans to vote on the the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world.
1. Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says "...the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties .... Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents." Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
2. "However, this provision (the new amendment in Section 59) does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services (CYFs) who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/14-may-2007-united-future-nz-party.html
3. Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
Please do not grow weary during these last hours. Please contact your MPs URGENTLY. Thursday will be too late.
Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
1. Lobbying tools
We need to let the MPs know that we, the majority, do not agree with this re-written Section 59. If you have never written a letter or email to an MP before then now is the time to do it.
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links several times over the next 11 days:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
or
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby. We are fast running out of time for visiting our MPs. Only one Saturdays before May 16. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. You can read much commentary about Section 59 here:
Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "Re-written Section 59 -- Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only two days until the vote on Wednesday 16.
Here is some URGENT reading for you which clarifies some of our concerns about Section 59. We can't trust the Police or CYFs as our Government plans to vote on the the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world.
1. Politicians will vote this week on the world's most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says "...the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties .... Sweden's ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand's bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents." Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
2. "However, this provision (the new amendment in Section 59) does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services (CYFs) who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/14-may-2007-united-future-nz-party.html
3. Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
Please do not grow weary during these last hours. Please contact your MPs URGENTLY. Thursday will be too late.
Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz
if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
1. Lobbying tools
We need to let the MPs know that we, the majority, do not agree with this re-written Section 59. If you have never written a letter or email to an MP before then now is the time to do it.
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links several times over the next 11 days:
http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm
or
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
or
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls
LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington
FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP's office and say "Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59". You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby. We are fast running out of time for visiting our MPs. Only one Saturdays before May 16. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf
Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. You can read much commentary about Section 59 here:
Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "Re-written Section 59 -- Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
