Tuesday, 31 July 2007

31 July 2007 - Family Integrity #275 -- Govt has radical plan on child abuse

Dear Friends,

Here are two press releases from today which make it clear, if it wasn't already, that New Zealand has crossed over the line into a socialist totalitarian regime ruled by an elite group (MPs), 50% of whom, because of our MMP electoral system, are not accountable to the voters of any electorate. The behaviour of these MPs over the last few legislative issues (banning of smacking, legalising of prostitution, setting up civil unions) demonstrates that we do not live in a democracy, for the MPs have dropped all pretense of giving any heed to what the vast majorities (80-90% in these three issues named) of voters wanted. Note how every family is suspect and will be questioned to see if they are perhaps innocent. New Zealand used to have the legal understanding that you were innocent until proven guilty. No more.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...

(When reading these, always remember that "violence" includes any form of smacking/spanking regardless of the context plus any force whatsoever no matter how light or reasonable if the force was used for the purpose of correction. Sadly "correction" is not defined in law here, so it is not clear what is meant, although the police have issued guidelines which indicate that it includes "discipline" and "punishment".)

Govt has radical plan on child abuse
| Tuesday, 31 July 2007

LATEST: All women will be questioned about family violence whenever they go to a public hospital, the Government said today.



What do you think of the Government's plan? Click here to send us your feedback editorial@stuff.co.nz
Speaking on Radio New Zealand, acting Social Development minister Steve Maharey said the plan would kick off tomorrow.

* Has anybody hurt or threatened you?

* Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?

* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn't want to do?

Under the new move, piloted at National Women's Hospital, any woman who answered 'yes' to one or more of the three questions would be further questioned to find out if she was pregnant and if there were children at home.

Mr Maharey said the move was among several measures being taken.

"Frontline health workers of hospitals will be working with all people who come through hospitals in future, children, families to look at whether there is violence in the family, whether there's any kind of assistance that can be given," Mr Maharey told Radio New Zealand.

While it will now be formal policy many hospitals are already doing something similar.

In March Bay of Plenty District Health Board announced it would become latest DHB to automatically screen all women over 16 for signs of family violence.

Most DHBs from around the country had adopted the programme over the past four years.

The move was one of a range of initiatives including a previously announced $14 million campaign starting in September to send a message violence was unacceptable and tell people how to get help.

There will be a helpline that will direct people to assistance.

Mr Maharey said the announcement was planned before two recent cases hit the national headlines.

On Saturday a 12-week-old Rotorua boy was taken to Starship Hospital with head injuries and three-year-old Nia Glassie remains in the same hospital six days after being treated for serious injuries following allegations of abuse which include being hung from a washing line and spun in a clothes dryer.

Auckland District Health Board family violence co-ordinator Kathy Lowe said nurses were required to ask the first three questions of every woman aged 16 to 65 and every caregiver of children even if they came to hospital for something like an ingrown toenail.

Yesterday social groups and politicians called for stronger tackling of child abuse.

Four people - three men and a woman - reappeared in Rotorua District Court court yesterday accused of abusing Nia and were further remanded.

A fifth man also facing similar charges and police have not yet ruled out further arrests.

The unrelated Rotorua cases have reignited the debate about New Zealand's high rate of child abuse, little over a year after the death of three-month-old twins Cru and Chris Kahui in Auckland sparked a similar debate.

United Future leader Peter Dunne said Maori needed to face up to child abuse problems in their community.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said he was ashamed to hear about every case of child abuse among Maori.

He said problems of child abuse stemmed from a dysfunctional culture which happened among poverty-stricken and underachieving communities, a group in which Maori were too highly represented, and that Maori needed to take ownership of the problem and working towards solutions.

National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges chief executive Heather Henare said the cases were shocking but warned against "Maori-bashing".

"We need to make sure we are not alienating whanau and that increased support goes into preventing such abuse from happening.

"The overwhelming majority of Maori are sickened by child abuse, and deserve support and encouragement to face the challenge of breaking the cycle of violence within their hapu and whanau."

Prime Minister Helen Clark called for people to act when they knew of abuse.

"I cannot believe that a child subjected to that level of horror, sadism, torture - that nobody knew," she said.

"I can't believe that and people have got to start turning in those who frankly are maiming and killing our children."

National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins said Miss Clark's Government had done little to stop child abuse since the death of the Kahui twins.

"What we do know is that Helen Clark's promise to identify clusters of at-risk families was never carried out and that the cross-party talkfest on child violence ended up largely being a repackaging of policies which Labour was already rolling out," she said.

"Our record on child abuse is a national disgrace. If Labour thought smacking legislation was the answer they were mistaken."

Non governmental Groups called for increased education and greater community involvement.



Stopping the cycle of violence against children
Tuesday, 31 July 2007, 10:34 am
Press Release: Green Party

31 July 2007

Stopping the cycle of violence against children

Each of us need to take responsibility and action to stop violence against children wherever and whenever we see it happening, including within our own families, Green Party MP Sue Bradford says.

"The success of my recent bill to amend s59 of the Crimes Act took just one step towards this goal, by removing the 'reasonable force' defence which legitimized violence against children for the purposes of correction. As a result, our legal system no longer mandates child beating," Ms Bradford says.

"However, all of us involved in the campaign around s59 knew full well that this was only one part of what needs to change. Rather than devote energy into blaming and scapegoating others, we need to work towards :
* Increasing funding to tangata whenua and community sector groups which support families in trouble, and which educate parents about alternatives to violence, including the SKIP programme

* Revitalising the Cross Party Working Group on Family Violence with the goal of genuinely working for policies that all, or most, political parties can buy into

* More parenting education in schools from a young age, so children grow up having a much better appreciation of the realities of becoming a parent

* A serious commitment by Government to do a lot more to end child and adult poverty, and substandard housing

* Continuing to improve the capacity of Government agencies to work with families in a genuinely developmental way - rather than perpetuating patronising and dismissive approaches which can harm and alienate the very people who most need support to change

* Reconsideration of the 'Work First' ethic of current welfare and Working for Families policies which implies that it is better for everyone, even the mothers of young children, to be in the paid work than at home caring for their children.

"It is also ironic that Bob McCroskie of Family First is mounting a campaign to reintroduce corporal punishment in schools at this time.

"Mr McCroskie still does not seem to understand that violence breeds violence. Such a measure, if successful, would only emphasise the message that it's good to beat kids - which creates the effects we see all around us today.


31 July 2007 - Stuff - Abused children expelled from kindy for violence


Abused children expelled from kindy for violence
By KATHY WEBB - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 31 July 2007

Some abused children are becoming so violent they are being expelled from kindergarten or infant classes at school, a Hawke's Bay paediatrician says.

Russell Wills, the clinical director of maternal, children and youth health at Hawke's Bay Hospital, said the effects of violence against children and their mothers went much deeper than physical injuries.

"The focus is on shaken babies and broken bones," he said.

That was serious enough, but a wider and deeper problem was emerging, that of violent children unable to trust adults or relate to other people.

He was dealing daily with children who had developed severe psychological problems that became permanent if not treated while they were infants or toddlers.

"By the time a child is 10 you've missed the boat."

It was becoming common for children to be expelled from kindergarten or the first two years of primary schooling, Dr Wills said.

Their parents were often poor, estranged from their own families, with little support and few parenting skills.

Violence was often the only way they knew how to react.

That spilled over into hospital wards, where parents fought and fathers threatened staff, Dr Wills said.

In one week he had had to have two fathers kept from the serious care baby unit and the children's ward.

Hawke's Bay health board's development of a strategy to tackle the region's high rate of child and domestic violence had worked so well that levels of reporting had rocketed.

Dr Wills expected 2500 Hawke's Bay youngsters would be referred to social welfare services this year, 300 of them by the hospital.

Staff had been trained to identify abuse and ask direct questions about it.

"There's a 50 per cent likelihood that if Mum is being beaten, the kids are, and if the kids are being beaten, there's a 50 per cent chance Mum is too."

Domestic violence referrals had increased from 40 a year to 120 as a result of directly confronting women.

The strategy, called the Hawke's Bay Family Intervention Programme, had proven so successful it is to be launched nationwide tomorrow by the Health Ministry.

The Napier-based Sensible Sentencing Trust announced yesterday it was creating a unit within its ranks to push for zero tolerance and tougher jail sentences for child abusers.

Spokesman Garth McVicar said jail terms for people killing or abusing their children had been woefully inadequate.

"Our children are unable to defend themselves and Parliament seems to have put this problem in the too-hard basket, and judges are ignoring the public's cry for deterrent sentences to protect our children," he said.

30 July 2007 - A second Rotorua child abused this week


A second Rotorua child - a 12-week-old baby - is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries.

Nia Glassie
The latest baby, a boy, was admitted on Saturday. He was in a stable condition last night.

The cases have prompted a Starship intensive care specialist to describe New Zealand's level of child abuse as a national scandal....

Dr Liz Segedin, who cares for the small and vulnerable victims, last night said up to one child a month was admitted to the Starship with brain injuries caused by abuse.

Monday, 30 July 2007

30 July - Family Integrity #274 -- Test and Prelude

Greetings all,

Here below is some great commentary on Section 59, pointing out the kind of ugly stuff we have to look forward to.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...

The Anti-Smacking Bill -A Test And A Prelude To Persecution

Why is it for Bradford and Clark that the enemies are always Christian "Fundamentalists"?
Garnet Milne

The anti-smacking, anti-parenting bill is a test and a prelude. It is a test to see if parliament will pass legislation which especially discriminates against Christian values-in this case the Christian biblical warrant for using corporal punishment in child rearing. It is a test because if it succeeds then more intrusive legislation against Christian values will follow. This will involve hate speech legislation aimed at churches and private schools which teach morality, especially Christian moral teaching which criticises homosexuality, divorce, abortion, religious idolatry and adultery as being morally repugnant. The social engineers who control the reigns of power have a deep hatred for God, His people, and His Law.

The Fabian socialists* have been building up to this for a considerable period of time. They have succeeded in decriminalising homosexuality and in order to do so they were very cunning. They used an argument that it wouldn’t hurt non-homosexuals, because they were not being compelled to agree with homosexuality. They argued “live and let live”.

Once they had achieved this victory, the neo-pagans realised that their real goals were within their reach, but the argument they had used to achieve the decriminalising of homosexuality was no longer sufficient. They had argued that the Christian public were not being compelled in anyway by laws sanctioning homosexuality, later prostitution, and in the not too distant future euthanasia. The social engineers realised that in order to achieve their real goal of suppressing and criminalising Christian morality, not just count it as one legitimate expression of morality in a free society, they would need to first get immorality normalised and sanctioned as morally acceptable. Once that had been achieved the social engineers would move into the next phase (which is happening right now) and begin to push legislation-on a gullible and largely apathetic public, legislation which would actually punish and thereby marginalise the Christian voice.

For those with the eyes to see, there is ample evidence that this is taking place in New Zealand. Once the neo-pagan Fabian socialists have succeeded in criminalising ordinary parents who smack their kids, they will move onto hate-speech legislation directed against Christians especially who speak out against homosexuality and false religions such as Islam, among other evils. This trend will only be checked if Christians return to faithfulness and begin to apply the Christian faith to all of life, holding evil politicians accountable for their scurrilous misuse of political power.

Christians will need to unitedly dissent from the present political system as a testimony against this evil, and then agitate for a recommitment to our historic responsibility as a nation in covenant with God, a status inherited from our British roots. A piecemeal approach to applying Christianity only as far as the neo-pagans will let us is a dead end. Only a radical social revolution will stem the tide of Fabian socialist legislated evil, a vile blot on our nation’s brief history. This revolution must begin with the nation’s believers uniting in an attempt to recommit ourselves as a covenant nation under God. Playing lobbyists, while necessary to maintain a witness or testimony against evil, will never be a sufficient to achieve a real and lasting victory for truth and peace in our time.

*“Fabian” is a name taken by early socialists in the UK from a Roman general (Quintus Fabius Maximus) whose tactics involved wearing the enemy down through attrition by harassment rather than direct confrontation in classical battle array. Fabianism is therefore the doctrine of gradualism in politics.

This page printed from: http://reformationtestimony.org.nz/Essaysa/Corporal/TestPrelude.html

30 July 2007 - nzherald - Your Views


What can be done about NZ's child abuse problem?
1:26PM Monday July 30, 2007

Your Views

What do you think of Labour's chances of being re-elected?
Should players questioning referees at the World Cup be penalised?

Send us your views

The Prime Minister has today voiced her concern over the grave issue of child abuse.

A second Rotorua child - a 12-week-old baby - is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries.

What can be done to solve the country's escalating child abuse problem? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:

Let the New Zealand Herald know your views here and read online others views:

30 July 2007 - Family Integrity #273 -- Dangerous Precedent

Dear Friends,

Consider the following poll results of this morning:


Should police have more powers to seize children at risk of abuse?
Yes 86%
No 12%
Not sure 2%

(Results as at 10:35am Mon 30 July 2007.)

The stories of abuse and death of children in the home are horrendous, and calls for action are needed and welcomed.

What kind of action is needed? This poll intimates that more police intervention is needed: intervention BEFORE any injury or crime has been committed. This is a very dangerous precedent. All parents will come under suspicion. Suspicion -- mere suspicion, not actual facts or real behaviour -- will be the criteria for police intervention. And Police intervention in relation to children means CYFS intervention and what they call "alternative placement": that is, your children are taken away and given to someone else.

The Police already have the power to break into homes and remove children, using whatever force in necessary, WITHOUT a warrant, if they belive the child is in immanent danger (see Section 42 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989).

It is during times of crisis and when the public mind is very angry at such ugly crimes as we've seen against wee children in the last few weeks that the state can be given -- in a very unwise, reactionary way -- license to remove more liberty, license to give more unnecessary interventionary powers to agents of the state.

Craig S. Smith

30 July 2007 - Family First - Our Silence is Killing Us

Our Silence is Killing Us

Each week another New Zealand child’s life is extinguished or damaged because violent parents or caregivers will not meet or can not cope with their responsibilities.

We are sick and tired of doing nothing while our babies and children are being abused and murdered.

When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up.

Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

Read what happened to little 3 year old Nia from Rotorua who lies in Starship Hospital at the moment


Read what happened to 3 year old Ngati from Otara, and the pathetic punishment his mum and step-dad received


Read a 5 point action plan, designed to get the problem away from Politics and political agendas, and into the hands of local communities and organisations.


YES! You can do something...

1. Download and print off the petition forms demanding a Referendum on Child Abuse , and opposing the politicians’ response to child abuse of criminalising good parents!

Pass it around the office, neighbourhood, church, community organisation – and send it in as soon as possible.



Don't let it be 'swept under the carpet' like the Kahui case.

2. Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

Our silence is deafening and our children are suffering.

No More.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |

28 July 2007 - Family Integrity #272 -- Family First Press Releases


Here are two press releases from Family First that I thought worth sending onto you:

My comments with this one are: "So much for the strong message Bradford and Kiro insisted was being sent by rewriting Section 59. All the law change did was put all good parents in the firing line, unsure what force they are allowed to use and for what purpose, for the state has taken away from parents that discretion and authority."

Just a bit of caution: Bob's ideas still make the state the final decision maker, since the state is called upon to fund 4 of the 5 steps outlined.

Craig Smith

Saturday, 28 July 2007

28 JULY 2007 - Family First - 5-Point Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse

28 JULY 2007

5-Point Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse

Family First NZ has released a 5-point Action Plan to tackle the high rates of child abuse in NZ.

“The recent Rotorua case which has shocked the nation, in a similar way to the Kahui case, highlights the need for drastic action in this area,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

The Action Plan includes:

1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are working with at-risk families to identify causes of child abuse and effective solutions, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, race-based issues and poverty in these high rates.

2. an immediate increase of support and resourcing to grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families attempting to stop abuse in the first place - for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes

3. an increased investment in parenting organisations such as Parents Inc and other community based positive parenting programmes.

4. a media-based anti-child abuse campaign, in the same way road afety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse

5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially increased to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.

Desparate times call for desparate actions,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The Children’s Commissioner denies the need for an Inquiry yet the best she can offer is a ban on smacks and wasting time and resources ‘auditing’ good families. Meanwhile the horrendous abuse continues.”

“And the politicians, by spending so much time and energy on section 59 have also shown that they are unwilling and unable to deal with real causes of child abuse. Their cross-party committee to tackle child abuse after the Kahui case self-destructed.”

“Child abuse is greater than any political agenda, will require a huge amount of honesty, and must be owned and solved by New Zealanders.”

“Our silence and inaction has been killing us. No more.”


For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Child deaths by neglect or violence from 1990 - 2001

Some statistics on Child Abuse cases in NZ before Section 59 was amended:


In New Zealand more Maori children than any other nationality are killed by neglect or violence. From 1990 to 2001, for every 100,000 children in New Zealand 24 Maori children were killed, 12 Asian, nine Pakeha and six polynesian children.

Another New Zealand study:

Friday, 27 July 2007

27 July 2007 - For The Sake Of Our Children - Rankin calls for an 'Honest Debate On Child Abuse

27 July 2007 - For The Sake Of Our Children - Rankin calls for an 'Honest Debate On Child Abuse


Rankin calls for an 'Honest Debate On Child Abuse
Friday, 27 July 2007, 2:24 pm
Press Release: For The Sake Of Our Children
'Children's Advocate' Christine Rankin calls for an 'Honest and Courageous Debate on Child Abuse'

Media Release
27 July 2007

Christine Rankin, CEO For the Sake of our Children Trust and Family First NZ agree that there should be an independent Inquiry into child abuse in New Zealand.

“I’m absolutely sick of it,” says Christine Rankin, CEO of For the Sake of our Children. “When you’re in the kind of arena we’re in, you wait week by week for this to happen again. You can almost count on it now.”

“It seems we can’t take it seriously. We get very upset by high-profile cases like this Rotorua case and the Kahui's, but there’s a barrier that means we can’t talk about the real issues – that barrier is political correctness.”

“The real issues are being masked. Maori feature hugely in the child abuse statistics, yet this fact is something that we’re not allowed to talk about and when I’ve raised this issue before, I’ve been accused of being racist.”

“I’m not racist. I’m simply stating the facts. Are we honest enough to tell the truth?”

“Approximately 60% of child abuse is in Maori families yet they represent only 15% of the population.”

Rankin questions why Maori leaders aren’t speaking up more strongly on this issue.

“They are leaving a legacy to their people and to this country – they deny that it is a real issue, talk around it, and any Maori leader who speaks up on this seems to quickly withdraw from their strong and courageous stance. Why won’t they fight this issue?”

“There are also no repercussions for child abuse. The recent sentencing of an Otara couple to four years each for beating a child to death is disgraceful. There is no responsibility and no consequences.”

The OECD and CYF reports consistently identify drug and alcohol abuse, and family breakdown as key contributors to child abuse. There are no consequences for these irresponsible thugs who cause untold suffering to our children.

“The anti-smacking bill was never going to make a difference. These abusers don’t even know about section 59 and they don’t care anyway. Child abuse had no relevance to the smacking law.”

Christine Rankin is asking for an independent Inquiry on child abuse - separate from political agendas and correctness – and comprising community leaders who are willing to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.


Some child abuse cases in NZ - since Section 59 amended

Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:

JUNE 2007

* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries

* 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative. Sixteen-month-old Sachin died of head injuries suffered while being cared for by a relative in June. He spent three days connected to a life- support machine in Auckland's Starship children's hospital, before dying on June 21. An autopsy revealed he died from blunt force trauma to his head. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4204745a12855.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4221779a10.html

* 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.

* Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.

*An 18-month-old West Auckland toddler is in hospital with serious arm and leg injuries suffered on separate occasions and up to a month before medical treatment was sought. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456014

*Dad allegedly made girls fight for right not to be beaten. A Hastings father gave his daughters boxing gloves and told them to fight – with the loser to get "a hiding", a court was told. The sisters, aged 11 and 13, donned the red gloves and began punching each other in the lounge till the oldest started crying. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4199250a10.html

JULY 2007

* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months

* Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P

* 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse by stepfather and extended family - now died

* A second Rotorua child - a 12-week-old baby - is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/30-july-2007-second-rotorua-child.html

*Boy, 8, kicked for being 'too slow' eating dinner http://www.stuff.co.nz/4189938a10.html

*Five-year-old high on P in drug house. Police found a five-year-old boy high on P during a raid on a drug house where methamphetamine was being cooked in a bedroom.


* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* Police will tomorrow arrest a Putaruru man for allegedly using weapons to beat his two stepsons aged 13 and 14, regularly over nine months, leaving them with bruises all over their upper body. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/media_13.html

* A five-week-old girl with multiple breaks to both arms is the latest suspected child-abuse case being investigated by Christchurch police. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4168701a11.html#Scene_1

*A woman accused of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her 6-week-old baby has pleaded with a court to get the child back.... She has been charged with neglecting her legal duty to provide necessaries for her 6-week-old son in a way that endangered his life....Police said they had been told Kahotea-Jones took the baby to the park on an extremely cold winter's day dressed only in light clothing. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4193313a11.html

*Throwing pepper in a six-year-old boy's eyes as a punishment was an unthinking act, done under extreme stress, Lower Hutt District Court was today. Craig Leslie Ozich, 31, was sentenced by Judge John Walker to 150 hours' community service after pleading guilty to assault on a child...Judge Walker said Ozich had been boarding at a house where the boy and his mother lived. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4213154a12855.html


* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* Yet Another Child Abuse Story. Catherine Lawson from Jigsaw, National Consultant, National Infrastructure for Children and Youth (NICY) who Witness Family Violence, speaks out following the recent case where a small three year old girl, nicknamed “Pumpkin”, who has been identified as a 3 year old child who has been living in a family violence environment. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00292.htm

* Police investigating baby death - Jyniah Te Awa. South Auckland police are investigating two houses following the death of a 10-month-old baby girl. The girl was taken to hospital from a Manurewa address on Sunday. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4214398a10.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4215743a10.html and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10466030


* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* VICTIM OF CURSE RITUAL: Janet Moses, 22, of Wainuiomata, was the mother of two little girls. She is thought to have drowned during an exorcism ceremony. A 14-year-old girl nearly died in the ritual that killed Wainuiomata mother Janet Moses. A total of six people were exorcised last month as relatives tried to drive out a makutu, or Maori curse, thought to have been sparked by the theft of a statue. The 14-year-old - a cousin of Ms Moses - was admitted to hospital before being taken into Child, Youth and Family care. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4271124a10.html Girl's eyes gouged to get rid of devil. A 14-year-old who nearly died during an exorcism needed emergency treatment to save her sight after relatives scratched at her eyes to remove the devil. The girl is a cousin of Janet Moses, the woman who died during the October 12 ceremony to lift a Maori curse. The girl had chunks gouged from her eyeballs. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4287818a11.html

November 2007

* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

* A mother who left her two- and four-year-old children to wander the streets unsupervised and hungry has been sentenced to community work. They also reported the children wandering outside, unsupervised and hungry, and not being able to find anything in the house but beer. Sometimes the children had injuries, including a burn to the cheek and black eyes. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4261575a10.html

* Pregnant at 11: Kiro cites girl's case in abuse plea - 19 November 2007
The case of a girl who became pregnant at 11 and had her baby when she was 12 was cited by Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro today when she made a plea for people to speak up against child abuse. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4280826a10.html

December 2007

* About 1,500 babies in their mother's womb

*Baby clings to life as police investigate injuries A two-month-old girl is clinging to life in Auckland's Starship Hospital as police investigate how she came to receive critical head injuries. Her two-year-old sister was taken into CYF care after her parents drove the baby to Middlemore Hospital on Friday afternoon. The baby was transferred to Starship the same day, with fears she would not survive. Detective Senior Sergeant David Lynch said it was unclear how the baby received her injuries. "We're keeping an open mind at the moment." http://www.stuff.co.nz/4340462a11.html
and http://stuff.co.nz/4340732a11.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4346092a10.html

“This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.” “An independent Inquiry would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie of Family First

27 JULY 2007 - Family First - Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

27 JULY 2007

Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

Family First NZ is joining with For the Sake of our Children Trust in calling for an official Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ.

The call comes after the horrific case of a Rotorua child fighting for her life as a result of abuse by her step-father and other household members.

“The ban on smacking was simply an admission by politicians that they could not and would not tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by recent CYFS and UNICEF reports,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First.

“The 80% plus of NZ’ers who opposed Bradford’s bill are not people who were demanding the right to “thrash and beat” children as suggested by Helen Clark. They were simply kiwis who were exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed child welfare groups were more interested in targeting good parents and light smacking than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty, and weak family ties.”

“The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”

“An Otara couple who could be out of prison in only four years for the recent horrific abuse of their three year old shows that we simply aren’t placing enough emphasis and resources on sending a clear message to child abusers that their actions are unacceptable. These type of people probably think section 59 is the main road into Wellington.”

Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:

June 2007

* Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries

* 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative

* 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.

* Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.

July 2007

* Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months

* Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P

* 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse by stepfather and extended family

“This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

“An independent Inquiry would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie


For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Thursday, 26 July 2007

26 July 2007 - Ruby Harrold-Claesson - The Empresses' new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!

Dear Editor,

I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you a manuscript "The Empresses' new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!"

Very truly yours
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney at law
President or the NKMR/NCHR

The Empresses' new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!

One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member's Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform - and to warn - the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.

When I left New Zealand after my two-week stay, I was hopeful that the bill would not pass because over 80 % of the population was not in favour of it. I had also thought that New Zealand was a democratic country that respected the will of the people. My warnings were backed by my presentation of 30 of the court cases that I have collected for my coming PhD thesis on the Swedish anti-smacking law. These show how parents were prosecuted and sentenced to fines or prison and their children were taken into forcible public care and separated from them and placed in foster homes. But it all fell on deaf parliamentarian ears. My hopes were finally crumbled in May when the compromise was reached and the bill became law because the MPs were forced to vote against their consciences. Fortunately, a few MPs with high integrity refused to vote for the law: one even resigned from his Party because of it.

New Zealand has made a historical mistake by following Sweden's example to ban smacking. New Zealand's law has gone even farther than Sweden's in that it prescribes criminal penalties for smacking parents and the Children's Commissioner cheered - just like the crowds did at the Emperor's new clothes. The Swedish law doesn't prescribe criminal penalties, but Parliament was informed that the new law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Penal Law. And so it has been.

Section 59 was good legislation and as such it should not have been tampered with in any way. Sue Bradford sent three strong messages:
1 - She knows best - better than the legally educated judges on whose discretion it lies to decide what is "reasonable force";
2 - She does not trust the judgement of the courts;
3 - She thinks previous rulings were wrong.

Remember, the anti-smacking law was not delivered to mankind on slabs of stone as one of the Ten Commandments. It was imposed by the Swedish social engineers. So, the fact that Sweden repealed its equivalent to Section 59 does not justify New Zealand repealing its own. In a TV-debate on July 19, 2006, Sue Bradford said that it was irrelevant to discuss Sweden. However, it is quite obvious that no one can discuss imposing a smacking-ban on a country without taking Sweden - the pioneer - into account. Also, the British Parliament engaged in similar legislative procedure in 2004. It resulted in the Lester amendment, which is called the "fudge". The Lester amendment is deemed as a progression towards a total smacking ban. However, England is facing a re-think. In an article in The People, July 8, 2007, Tory children's minister Tim Loughton said: "The present law is unworkable nonsense - it just criminalises parents. We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children."

While the Swedish parliament may have been in good faith in repealing their equivalent to Section 59 and consequently passing the anti-smacking law despite the warnings of important judicial organs, the NZ parliament cannot be deemed to have acted in good faith. Both Dr Bob Larzelere and I informed them of the disastrous consequences that the Swedish anti-smacking law has had for children, families and the society as a whole.

The NZ anti-smacking lobby claims that repealing Section 59 will stop child abuse. They also claim that Swedish children are safer and that only one child every four years dies from abuse in Sweden. These claims have been proven mendacious so, imposing a smacking ban with reference to Sweden's "low mortality rates" shows that they have failed to note that homicide rates indicate only the extreme cases of child abuse. How often does one hear of 'death by a smack'? Homicide rates are not the same as rates of supposed harm by smacking. And, the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act will not change the situation for children who are subject to abuse.

Not even the blanket prohibition against smacking that was passed in 1979 has prevented child abuse in Sweden. In fact, assistant professor Hans Temrin at the University of Stockholm has shown in two separate press releases, the latter of which was published in May 2006, that 258 children in Sweden died at the hands of their parents or guardians between 1965 - 1999. Incidentally, those figures do not include children who have died while in state care, for e.g. Daniel Sigström (1992) or Felicia Pettersson (2005). A little reminder: in Sweden, in January - February 2006 three children under the age of ten died at the hands of their parents and in May a 12 yr-old girl was murdered by her step-father.

You may wonder what the reason is for my involvement in the New Zealand smacking debate. Well, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking so it is cited as the model to follow. In my capacity as a lawyer in Sweden, researcher on the Swedish anti-smacking law (PhD) and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries , I have close-up experiences of the that law. I find that Sweden is the model to avoid - at all costs.

Parenting vs child abuse
Here's why:
1 - society accepts that parenting, by definition, embraces a corrective role. Sweden, that prides itself in being the first country in the world to abolish physical punishment - smacking - of children, removed the plea of "reasonable force" in 1957. Sweden has thereafter taken further steps to "protect children" from "abuse" and in 1979 the "Anti-smacking law", which was promulgated in the Parent and guardianship Code, came into force. Smacking was equated to "child abuse". Several state organs that gave opinions warned against the law. They invoked the indoctrination to violence that children meet in films and in the media and also the administrative violence that children and their parents would be subjected to because of the totalitarian nature of the law.

Despite the fact that Parliament had been informed that the law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Criminal Code, the information given in the English summary promised that no parents would be prosecuted because of the law. This was reiterated in similar words to the international audience in Paris when the law was presented to the world stating that the law does "not represent an extension of the punishable area". However, the first prosecution for minor incidents occurred already in 1978 - prior to the passing of the law. Swedish statistics published in February 2007 show that there has been a 14% increase in child abuse despite the smacking ban, with 11 000 reports of "child abuse" per year in Sweden. There are claims that "only" ten percent are prosecuted. Yet, the Swedish and New Zealand lobbies and their experts and statisticians claim that the Swedish smacking ban is extremely successful, and that polls show that only a minor percent of Swedish parents smack their children.

With 11 000 reports of "child abuse" per year and "only" ten percent being prosecuted there seemed to be a need for more stringent laws to guarantee the success of the Swedish smacking ban. So, in 1998 - 2000 the law "gross disturbance of the peace" - which initially was drafted to protect battered women - came to include child smacking. Since then parents are being prosecuted for "gross disturbance of the peace" and their children are taken into compulsory care. The difference between being prosecuted for "child abuse" and "gross disturbance of the peace" is that in the former one had to present times and dates, but in the latter the charges do not have to be substantiated.

Smacking = child abuse?
2 - In my capacity as legal practitioner in Sweden , researcher and president of the "Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries", I have seen the effects of the anti-smacking law on children and their families. Because of my first-hand knowledge of the Swedish system, I was approached by two persons from separate parts of NZ who had found the NCHR's web site and I have now been engaged in the Section 59 debate for the past two years. I made both a written and an oral submission to the Section 59 Select Committee. My oral submission was accompanied by 32 case summaries in English and 30 photocopies of verdicts, summary judgements and newspaper or other articles in Swedish.

Discipline in Sweden has become a word that is despised and equated with child abuse. It is a very extremist view and one that should be examined carefully. In his book "Basic theory of Psychoanalysis" Robert Waelder wrote the following:
"... a psychoanalytic approach to upbringing does not mean that children should get what they desire when they desire something; instead it demands an attempt to find a suitable balance between satisfaction and disappointment in every situation ... we have to find the optimal combination of two equally important but partly opposite ingredients for a healthy development, namely, love and discipline; to love without spoiling and to discipline without injuring."

In his paper "Combining Love and Limits in Authoritative Parenting: A Conditional Sequence Model of Disciplinary Responses" published in 2001, Dr. Bob Larzelere finds that several research programs have shown that optimal parenting combines love and limits - not pitting both ingredients against each other.

UN and Unicef Directives
In May 2006, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who is married to a Swedish woman, thus his interest to promote the Swedish agenda, issued directives that every country in the world should impose anti-smacking laws. Kofi Annan, also known for his non-intervention in the Rwandan massacre, has completely ignored the gross injustices being perpetrated because of the Swedish anti-smacking law; that thousands of families have been - and are being - destroyed by unnecessary state interventions and that parents are afraid to correct their children. To implement his directives, Kofi Annan appointed the Portuguese professor, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, to lobby all governments in the world "to offer children the same protection under the law that adults have". This is a most interesting phrase, because UNCROC in its preamble stipulates for the protection of children as follows: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". Sweden fails grossly to meet up to that requirement for ca 30 000 unborn children per year. The New Zealand figures are 18 000.

The ideological "child protection" advocates claim that they are acting in the child's best interest when they call for a total ban on smacking and heavy penalties for smacking parents. However, they fail to realise that they are the very ones who are exposing children to severe abuse. Normally, the vast majority of parents talk to their children and try to make them comply. A smack is usually administered when words and admonition have failed to have the desired effect. So, if a child is smacked for something that he/she did or failed to do, subjecting the parents to police investigations and subsequent social investigations and separating the child from its parents will be double punishment for the child. This will not only expose the child to severe trauma but also damage the child's relations to its parents - maybe permanently. So, those Kiwis (MPs) must be crazy!

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, President of the NCHR/NKMR.

1 Larzelere's parting comments http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00223.htm
2 Was the Lester amendment really necessary? By Kay Ma. Dissertation 2005.

3 Hans Temrin "Styvföräldrar misshandlar oftare barn till döds", DN May 12, 2006
4 Kathryn Rich claimed that I am "a fruit loop". See Prof Jacob Sundberg's letter to Kathryn Rich http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html and his letter to Deborah Coddington, http://www.nkmr.org/english/coddington_letter.htm

5 14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm
6 "Anti-smack campaign fails to pack a punch" quotation, Christian Diesen. Note in the article that Diesen wants more parents to be prosecuted.
7 I am not a member of the Swedish Bar Association, a fact that Sue Bradford and her "child protection" lobby, unknowledgeable of the Swedish system, tried to make a big affair of in their attempts to discredit me because of my criticism of the Swedish anti-smacking law. Cf Note 4 supra.

8 Waelder, R IUP, New York, 1964
9 http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
10 European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod - or go to court http://www.corpun.com/eud00002.htm

Tuesday, 24 July 2007

21 July 07 - NZCPR Weekly - Breaking Through

NZCPR Weekly

21 July 07
NZCPR Weekly - Topic: Welfare
Breaking Through
Muriel Newman

Breaking Through

Early last year a little boy was brutally beaten to death by his mother and her partner:

“The child's blood was also found throughout the house. In two rooms - the living area and his bedroom - the blood had splattered so high it hit the ceiling”.

Graphic photographs taken during his post-mortem showed three year old Ngatikaura Ngati’s body had suffered repeated beatings. His left arm was so badly damaged that it had swollen to twice its normal size. When pathologists cut it open they found all the tissue had already died from the beatings he had suffered.

The investigating Police Officer Richard Middleton said, "This is as bad as anything I have seen on a child or any human”.

Ngati’s mother had given him to childless relatives when he was a month old. They raised him as their own. But shortly after his third birthday, his mother wanted him back: “she was claiming a benefit for more children than were living with her and she was afraid of being caught out”. Three months later, the little boy was dead. (See From Happiness to Hell, Herald>>>) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10439204

This shocking case highlights the malevolent nature of child abuse in New Zealand – a vicious crime committed by a mother and her partner who were so hungry for benefit money that they placed their dependency on government welfare above the safety and happiness of their child.

For that reason, the second defendant in this case – and in most other child abuse cases in New Zealand - should be the State. The worst child abusers in this country are the government which has knowingly cemented in place social policies that create the environment for child abuse to flourish. Their social welfare policies lead to the disintegration of marriage, family and community as benefit recipients become hooked, realising that they are significantly better off if they stay single and on welfare.

Through unconditional state handouts to vulnerable women with children, whole communities have been created where the two-parent family has vanished, where work is rare or non-existent, and where social degradation – squalor, alcoholism, drugs, violence, crime - is commonplace.

Just last week, the Herald on Sunday reported on child abuse cases at Auckland’s Starship Hospital, stating that last year’s child abuse admissions were the worst on record. It also claimed that the figures for head injuries for Maori children are the highest in the world. (See Doctor Decries Staggering Level of Child Abuse>>>)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10451548&pnum=0

Yet the Government’s response to this national crisis is a shameful silence.

In contrast, the Howard Government in Australia has invoked a state of emergency to deal with their child abuse crisis - which is at a level similar to ours. They have introduced controls on dysfunctional families that include compulsory health checks on all at-risk children, linking benefit payments to school attendance, and quarantining 50 per cent of welfare payments to ensure that funds are used for children’s welfare, not booze, drugs or gambling.

The opposition Labour Party, recognising the seriousness of the problem, has pledged to put in place even tougher measures if they become the government, withholding all welfare payments from families that do not do the right thing by their children.

New Zealand remains the only country in the world that has wide open access to the sole parent benefit. Here, girl can get pregnant as teenager and literally have a benefit income for life. She can remain on the Domestic Purposes Benefit just so long as she doesn’t work, doesn’t marry, and from time to time has another baby to keep her eligibility current.

Yet life on a benefit is the very worst incentive that any government could possibly dangle in front of vulnerable young girls as it creates a perilous home environment for their children. Maori girls in particular are susceptible to the government’s anti-marriage welfare ‘bait’ with figures from the Ministry of Social Development showing that Maori teenage parents are on a benefit at a rate of 85 per 1,000, more than eight times higher the non-Maori rate of 10 per 1,000.

Just last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report showing that the number of children living in financial hardship in New Zealand has - incredibly - almost doubled in two decades from 12% in 1982 to 23% in 2004, with sole parent households with children being by far the worst off. (see MSD Hardship Report>>>) http://www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/Child_death_from_maltreatment.pdf

That is why the government’s refusal to fundamentally reform welfare, in order to move sole parents off benefits into supported work and a decent life, borders on being criminally negligent.

In contrast to a situation here, politicians in the US took action over a decade ago: “The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged welfare dependence had a negative effect on the development of children. Their goal was to disrupt intergenerational dependence by moving families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and marriage... Ten years after welfare reform became the law those who have enjoyed the greatest benefits are the most disadvantaged single parents with the most significant barriers to employment. In particular, young, never-married mothers with low levels of education and young children”. (see The Impact of Welfare Reform by the Heritage Foundation>>>)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

Figures from Statistics NZ confirm the dramatic move in New Zealand away from childbearing within marriage. Historically, only around five percent of babies were born outside of marriage. But largely as a result of the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in the seventies, the trend changed and by 1990 the rate had increased to 35 percent. As of last year, 47 percent of all babies born in New Zealand were born outside of marriage, which means that almost a half of all newborns in this country are being born into family structures that put them at an increased risk of child abuse.

That is not to say that all children born into de-facto relationships will be harmed; of course they won’t. Nor that all sole parents do a bad job; on the contrary many do an exceptional job and raise great kids. But just as there are no guarantees that children raised in two-parent married families will be happy and safe, on the balance of probability married families represent the safest of all environments in which to raise children, with un-married families the most dangerous.

Encouraging marriage is the approach that has now been taken by legislators in the United States in order to improve the outlook for children. It is also the conclusion that has been reached in “Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Costs of Social Breakdown”, a new report produced by the British Conservative Party’s Social Justice Commission. This report, which builds on last year’s “Breakdown Britain”, finds that the breakdown of the two-parent family and the decline of marriage is at the heart of the collapse of values in British society. It proposes a number of strategies to strengthen families and encourage marriage through adjustments to the tax and benefit systems. (see Breakthrough Britain>>>)

The report also discusses the significant contribution made by the voluntary sector, which works at the coalface of social dysfunction, and it recommends that it be liberated from the domination of state control.

According to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Peter Allen, who founded and headed the Prince of Wales Trust, the situation here in New Zealand is dire:

"During my eleven years of involvement with some of the country’s most complex young people I saw many valuable youth initiatives destroyed by the government’s youth policies and bureaucratic pressure. Unfortunately their loss is becoming increasingly apparent as we see more youth crime, assaults on elderly people, property damage, theft, drunken behaviour, increased drug abuse and more truancy from school than ever before".

He goes on to warn, "This Government’s destructive social policies have created divisions between cultures, within families, and across communities, and until there is a full realisation that the problems are politically motivated - and the people of this country demand appropriate action - the situation will continue to deteriorate". (To read Peter's article "The Bureaucratic Destruction of Private Sector Youth Support Services" click the sidebar link>>>) http://www.nzcpr.com/guest59.htm

Peter is right. Many of the complex social problems that we face in New Zealand – like the dreadful child abuse crisis – are being caused by politically motivated government policy. But until the public demands action, there will be no breaking though and as sure as night follows day, more and more innocent children like little Ngatikura Ngati will die.

Poll: The poll this week asks whether you would favour the introduction of policies to encourage marriage in New Zealand.
To vote click here>>> http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

[Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]

Last week's poll asked: Should the welfare reform proposed by the Howard Government in Australia should be adopted in New Zealand?
Result: 96% said Yes and 4% said No.
You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>. http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

Housekeeping: Please feel free to forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. A printer-friendly version is on the http://www.nzcpr.com website.

Don't forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm - why not visit the page and send in your submission.

To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. muriel@nzcpd.com

NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.

Wednesday, 18 July 2007

18 July 2007 - Family Integrity #271 -- FEET ON FOOTPATHS


If you are going to be in Auckland 28 July you might have time to help out with this campaign.


SAT 28TH JULY, 9am to 12noon
The Howick/Pakuranga Awareness Campaign

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...


SAT 28TH JULY, 9am to 12noon
The Howick/Pakuranga Awareness Campaign


This is an opportunity for concerned New Zealand citizens to launch themselves to action through Unity For Liberty


To publicly voice our frustration at the Government's arrogant disdain of the ordinary New Zealander evidenced in the passing of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

To raise public awareness of Larry Baldock’s petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum and to collect signatures for the petition.

Frequently Asked Questions:

"What is a Citizens Initiated Referendum?"
A Citizens Initiated Referendum is where all New Zealand voters are required to answer yes or no to a question(s), in this case, at the 2008 election, voters will be asked two questions.

The first one reads:
Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The second question reads:
Should the government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

At this stage we are not asking people to answer yes or no to the referendum questions. We are asking if they think that every New Zealander should have the opportunity to say yes or no to the questions in a referendum at the 2008 election.

"How many signatures do we need?"
Just over 300,000 (10% of the electoral roll)

"Where do I send the filled-in petition forms?"
C/- Larry Baldock. P.O. Box 9228 Greerton Tauranga


Make time on Saturday 28th July to join other concerned citizens on the street. We are calling for volunteers to be pedestrians, walking or standing on the footpaths of the selected campaign area (Howick/Pakuranga). You will carry petition forms and small placards baring a message that is focused on the issue.

We aim to be in the Howick/Pakuranga area from 9am to 12noon. The area will be divided into sections and within each area we will suggest strategic places to stand for optimum coverage. Volunteers have the option to meet those working in their section at approximately 8.45am, before starting. (Upon registering for this event, we will inform you of your area.) In this way, families, youth groups, churches and interest groups can work together in the same geographical area. It is suggested that teenagers/youth groups work in teams, standing in pairs, and even rotating jobs over the course of the morning.

Depending upon enthusiasm and time, volunteers may use other means to heighten the awareness of the petition and gain signatures. This may involve door knocking for signatures, parking your car (nearby) with signs on the window, or any other appropriate options. It’s all up to you!

Unity For Liberty hopes that as local residents go about their daily business, they will be confronted by a succession of clear messages and pleasant people. The impact of this event should be the talking point for at least 80% of all the homes in the area. For example- 300 people spaced at 1 km apart. The campaign will cover 300 kms over the Howick/Pakuranga area.

In order to coordinate a successful campaign in this area, we will need an indication of numbers. If you intend to join in this event, please let us know so we can allocate people to different areas. We intend to overload areas so no one will be isolated.

Group registrations are accepted and members will be placed together throughout the morning.

All activity involving Unity For Liberty is of a peaceful nature; any illegal or irresponsible actions will not be tolerated.

Some Helpful Guidelines:
In any case of confrontation, remember you are a pedestrian “walk away”.
If any responses are to be given, “we oppose child abuse”.
Do not be an obstruction to the general public.
Do not enter commercial business areas. There are by-laws in place that would be infringed.

Some ball-point pens, a clipboard or two, copies of the petition which you can download from here http://equipbiz.co.nz/politik/doc/cir_petition_info.pdf or http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, placards with the following messages: ‘Good Parents Aren’t Criminals’, ‘Sign The Petition’, ‘No to Nanny State’, ‘Parents Will Be Locked Up’, etc. All signage should be focused on the issue.
Food or drink if required.

Contact the co-ordinator: Craig Hill
Phone: 021 746 113 (SAT 28TH JULY - FEET ON FOOTPATHSfeel free to text or ring)
Email: craighill@maxnet.co.nz

Monday, 9 July 2007




EXCLUSIVE Human rights 'farce' faces axe
By Nigel Nelson
PARENTS who smack their children are likely to be spared the threat of jail under a Government rethink.

Mums and dads currently face up to five years in prison if they bruise or graze kids.

But outraged parents say the penalties - brought in two years ago under European human rights laws - are too tough.

They want the courts to distinguish between disciplining naughty kids and child abuse. Now the Government is to ask parents' views over the summer after other surveys showed that two-thirds are in favour of disciplinary smacking. Tory children's minister Tim Loughton said: "The present law is unworkable nonsense - it just criminalises parents.

"We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children." The current law allows "reasonable chastisement" but if a mark is made that could be treated as actual bodily harm.

Critics say that fails to recognise the difference between responsible parents and those who beat their kids black and blue.

The results of the Government survey will be announced by Schools Minister Andrew Adonis in the autumn when a law change will be considered.

Child protection organisations who want an outright ban on smacking will also be consulted.....

Friday, 6 July 2007

6 July 2007 - Family Integrity #270 -- Larzelere's parting comments

Dear Friends,

World expert on corporal correction Dr Robert Larzelere visited NZ earlier this year. If you haven't already done so, you must read his parting comments (reproduced below)as he left NZ just before the final vote which criminalised it here in New Zealand. Very sobering reading.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...

NZ’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World
Dr Robert E. Larzelere

After 28 years of research, I came to New Zealand on behalf of her children, her parents, and her ethnic and religious minorities with the boldest claim I have ever made in the public arena: “There is no sound scientific evidence to support a smacking ban.” The best evidence the Children’s Commissioner could muster against that claim on the Campbell Live TV program was about my written reply to an anti-smacking article in a scientific journal 14 years ago - not because of its content, but because the journal was sponsored by a Ph.D.-granting Christian university! How could someone as knowledgeable as Dr. Kiro emphasize such a ridiculous criticism? She got that criticism from her Canadian consultant Dr. Joan Durrant, the Pied Piper who wants to lead New Zealand’s children to the Swedish utopia that she could not lead her own country’s children to - because the Canadian Supreme Court retained their country’s version of Section 59 after considering both sides of the scientific and legal evidence.

What does this Swedish utopia look like? One year after Sweden’s smacking ban, 3% of their parents admitted beating up their child - 2 to 5 times higher than the overly high American rate. Physical child abuse increased almost 6-fold during the next 15 years, according to Swedish criminal records. Criminal assaults by minors against minors increased over 6-fold during that same time period. The ability of parents to enforce appropriate discipline continued to erode until only 31% of 10- to 12-year-olds thought that parents had the right to use grounding in 2000. All these statistics come from Swedish anti-smacking authors.

Even more worrisome, 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, although the government’s politically clever but inconsequential concession gives police the discretion not to prosecute mild offences. 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.

The New Zealand bill’s proponents claim that missionaries were responsible for introducing smacking and bashing to the Maori and other South Pacific peoples. The irony is that they are doing the same thing they accuse missionaries of - imposing a European philosophy of child correction on native ethnic groups - this time enforced with criminal penalties. In addition, the gap between what will be technically criminal and what will be prosecuted opens the door wide for discriminatory enforcement.

The bill is motivated by a commendable desire to reduce child abuse, but it will make it a crime to bring the most effective treatment for abusive parents to New Zealand. In a review of 20 years of treatments for abusive parents, eminent abuse researcher Dr. Mark Chaffin showed that none of them turned out to be effective. He then developed a new treatment that decreased recidivism of child abuse charges from 49% to 19%. It will be a crime to bring that treatment to New Zealand, however, because it includes a non-smacking type of force to enforce time out.

Everything seems backward to me in New Zealand - people drive on the left side of the road and are now preparing for winter instead of summer. And it is the liberals rather than the conservatives who take absolutist positions and impose their values on everyone else, including over 80% of Kiwis who oppose this ban. They also show little cultural sensitivity toward others who are different in religion or ethnicity.

The pervasive confusion about what will be permitted under the new law makes the pre-existing law allowing parents “reasonable force to correct their children” seem reasonable indeed, although it needs to be updated to clearly exclude physical abuse.

As Bill Clinton said of abortion, smacking ought to be safe, legal, and rare. His successor had an overly optimistic view about invading Iraq because they heard only one optimistic side of the scenarios. Now our country is in a quagmire with no good way out. For the sake of New Zealand’s children and future, I hope they have a better exit strategy than George Bush.

With this bill, New Zealand will leapfrog the field to ban more forms of traditional disciplinary enforcements than any other country. But their ban runs counter to scientific evidence, previous experiences with similar bans, and the wisdom of previous generations as far back as we can remember. It illustrates the world’s increasing inability to work out well-reasoned balanced positions rather than forcing people to choose between polarized extremes.

As I prepare to leave New Zealand, I have difficulty holding back the tears whenever I see its beautiful children, knowing they are about to be victimized by the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history. I feel like the engineer who predicted that the O-rings on the Challenger space shuttle were likely to fail, but no one would listen. His tragic prediction proved all too accurate. I hope I am less accurate about the forthcoming failure of New Zealand’s smacking ban than that engineer was.

Dr Larzelere is Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, and was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction.

Monday, 2 July 2007

2 July 2007 - hbtoday - EDITORIAL - All feeling smack in checkout


EDITORIAL - All feeling smack in checkout

With two suspicious deaths of infants at the weekend the controversy over whether cabinet minister David Cunliffe smacked his child in a supermarket seems obscenely petty.

But therein lies the point.

Mr Cunliffe - who denies he "smacked" his child - and his family are distressed by the attention received from "Families First", which has lobbied against the anti-smacking legislation.

And who could blame him?

His parenting methods - and, no doubt, those of all who have supported the anti-smacking legislation - have become hostage to politics. Such scrutiny, though unkind, is not surprising.

The law's opponents would relish the chance to test the new law on one of its high-profile advocates. However, all parents are in the same uncomfortable position as Mr Cunliffe, who was in fact congratulated by Families First, which said he "did what any half-decent parent would have done in the circumstances".
While the Government's accommodation reached with National for its support of the bill exempted "inconsequential" events from prosecution, that level has yet to be determined.

And despite repeated assurances that good parents won't be hauled before the courts, how can anyone know?

Is a small, corrective smack in a supermarket a forgivable "technical breach" or might it be eligible for prosecution if drawing a complaint or witnessed more than once?

How much discretion might police be allowed if the precautionary principle gives authority to finger-pointers and mischief makers (who appear to be the beneficiaries of the new law)?

The triviality of the Cunliffe affair seen beside the baby deaths - the importance of which it has all but eclipsed - is instructive because it underlines the worthlessness of sending messages with a prescriptive, intrusive law.

Most New Zealanders believe that not only the new law fails to honour its promise to protect the young but it will also hit the wrong targets.

Meanwhile the real problem will remain unaddressed.

Sue Bradford's bill won endorsement from many disgusted at the level of child abuse in New Zealand and who rightly believed something needed to be done. However, instead of focusing on baby bashers and killers (collectivist ideology absolves individual wrongdoers by making everyone else accountable) Parliament found blanket disapproval was far more convenient and put all parents on notice that they had better be on their best behaviour.

So disconnected have our politicians become from their constituents that they just cannot understand why they have deeply offended so many - even when one of their own is used to make the point.

1 July 2007 - menz.org.nz - Labor MP seen smacking

Interesting comments on:

Sun 1st July 2007
Labor MP seen smacking
Filed under: General — julie @ 11:40 am
It seems one of Labor’s MPs has broken their own “No Smacking law” yet he will not be prosecuted as no complaint was made from witness nor 2 year old child. Advice to all MPs, “Don’t take tots to shopping centres. That’s a testing area for parents.” lol


But on a more serious note. One of my neighbours came over last Friday night to talk because she is finding herself between a rock and a hard place at work. The childcare centres are getting hit hard over this new law and the top level management are blaming the staff of centres for not being able to control young children from hurting other children. My neighbour has spent many years working in the childcare centres and prior to that she was a strong advocate for women’s refuge. That was back when they would try and help the relationship sort out their difficulties unlike today where the refuges insist that the women do not have any contact with her husband and encourgae her to cut all ties between the fathers and children.

Anyhow, back to the childcare centre. 4 staff have already quit in the last month and my neighbour is having to do extra shifts. The childcare centre is finding it hard to replace the staff so she is quitting herself. Sad because she is great with kids and as she is older now, her opportunities for work are less than if she was younger. She says it is the culture in the children something the staff cannot change. I am not too sure what is going on behind closed doors but it doesn’t sound right if the staff are leaving.

This is the same scenario that happened to CYFS. Once upon a time CYFS workers were real life experienced men and women until policies and management made the employees work time miserable. And now we have young fresh out of school social workers who have no children themselves decide whether our children are safe with us parents.

2 July 2007 - newstalkzb - MP in smacking controversy


MP in smacking controversy
2/07/2007 7:36:02

Opponents of the new anti-smacking law believe the actions of a Labour MP prove its stupidity.

There are claims Cabinet Minister David Cunliffe was spotted smacking his child at LynnMall shopping centre in Auckland, despite the fact the MP voted in favour of legislation repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Independent MP Gordon Copeland was one of eight MPs to oppose the bill. He says Mr Cunliffe's case highlights the pitfalls of the new law, which outlaws smacking unless it is to save a child from harm. Police have discretion to decide whether to prosecute.