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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment