The smacking law hypocrisy
On August 21, Sweden awoke to the first part of the government report that was commissioned to investigate the abuse of children who had been in state care between 1950 - 1980. The report was commissioned following the documentary "Stolen Childhood" that was broadcasted in Nov. 2005.
Between 200 000 - 250 000 children were in foster homes and orphanages during the period 1950 - 1980. Today, many of them are suffering from mental disorders, others have broken relationships, poor education, low self-esteem, difficulty to find work or chronic unemployment, have become substance abusers and many are dead mostly due to overdoses, suicide or gang killings.
So far 62 persons have been interviewed by the commission. Another 120 persons are still to be heard. They have told gruesome stories of the abuses that they suffered in their foster homes or the orphanages in which they were placed. Light smacks and other forms of discipline that were acceptable before the passing of the anti-smacking law are not taken into account: only that which constituted assault or gross bodily harm and which under normal circumstances could have been prosecuted if the reports from the children and/or their parents had been heeded, have been recorded.
The former foster children tell of how they were beaten with brooms, leather belts, punched, deprived of food, made to eat food that they had vomited, sexually abused, insulted, pushed down stairs, held under water etc. Some of these crimes were committed after 1979 - the year of the passing of the anti-smacking law. The documentary about Ekbacken "treatment home" where more than 20 youngsters were placed between 1980 - 2003, showed how youngsters were removed from their parents care because they had been smacked, then placed at Ekbacken where they were severely abused.
It is quite interesting to hear the reactions of the head of the commission, Göran Johansson. "It was much worse than we had expected. None of us knew the full extent or depth of their misery," Göran Johansson told Dagens Nyheter. "We feel a sense of desperation, and indeed rage, with respect to the stories we have heard," he said.
"They tell of systematic abuse at the hands of those who were supposed to care for and protect them as children. There was everything from ruthless exploitation by means of physical labour to serious assault, psychological terror and rape," he added.
Maria Larsson, the minister of Health and Welfare said: "I am very upset over the fact that so many children were so badly treated while they were in state care in Sweden". "I feel numb when I read the report. At the same time it is necessary that these stories come out in the open so we can see what has been hiding in our Swedish history. It is a dark history, she said. (Sweden's dark history also includes the forced sterilisation of ca 60 000 mostly women from 1936 - 1976 when the law was repealed.)
The NCHR is pleased that the Swedish government is now in possession of the report into the conditions for the children who were former residents in foster homes and orphanages. It is however of utmost urgency that the government should investigate the conditions of the tens of thousands of children and young people who are living in foster homes today.
Neither the social authorities nor the police listen to the reports of abuse that the foster children, their parents or others make on their behalf. Not even reports made by lawyers are treated with any degree of seriousness.
I only hope that the government will not wait another 20 or 30 years to investigate the conditions of the children in the so-called "family homes". These children are suffering abuses similar to those unearthed by the foster home abuse commission.
See also "Sweden to probe years of abuse in children's homes", http://www.nkmr.org/english/sweden_to_probe_years_of_abuse_in_childrens_homes.htm and Foster home child abuse 'worse than expected', http://www.thelocal.se/8242/20070821
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Sweden
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR/NKMR
http://www.nkmr.org
Ruby showed these two videos to a number of people while she was in New Zealand in July 2006.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Friday, 24 August 2007
Media
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0708/S00429.htm
Collins Comments - 24 August 2007
Column: New Zealand National Party
New Zealanders were sickened when little Nia Glassie – aged 3 – was brutalised and later died in hospital. Many New Zealanders felt that her death was, ironically, a respite from what had clearly been an unmerciful, cruel and short life. Most of us wondered at how anybody could be so evil to a child. Most of us wondered at what has happened to sections of our communities that every 5 weeks, one of our babies is killed, usually by those charged with loving and nurturing them.
It is very easy to put money into welfare and into “programmes”. It’s not so easy to understand the mindset of those who are so lacking in empathy and so devoid of human decency and kindness that they will kill a child. What is even less easy is to stop making excuses for such people, to identify and then prevent the abuse.
We were told by the proponents of the anti-smacking law that this law would stop child abuse. It hasn’t. It won’t. We were told that those of us who have smacked our child on the hand or bottom for being naughty or unruly were, at worst, child abusers and, at the least, condoned “beating our babies”. We weren’t and we aren’t. Now with John Key’s intervention, the Police are required to use common sense in deciding whether or not to prosecute – something that was missing from Sue Bradford’s bill.
We need to understand how someone becomes a child abuser - not to make excuses, but to try to stop babies being killed. There are common markers for child abuse. We know that these incidences primarily occur in what is called “dysfunctional families”. James Whakaruru, Coral- Ellen Burrows, Nia Glassie, Soleil Aplin and Olympia Jetson (to name only a few) lived their short lives in severely dysfunctional homes. The families are normally well known to Child Youth and Family and the Police. They usually consist of loose personal relationships, intergenerational welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addictions, intergenerational child abuse including child sexual abuse, criminality, poor literacy and numeracy, lack of empathy for others, despair, lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a variety of government departments. Mix all these together, add a child, and we have a recipe for disaster.
In the meantime, a group of parents have organised a march against child abuse this Saturday, 25 August, at 10am in Queen Elizabeth II Square, Queen Street, Auckland. Indications are that the Children’s Commissioner and government agencies won’t attend. Apparently, the organisers are so politically incorrect as to call for harsher sentences for child abusers. Should abusing a child be elevated to a principal factor in sentencing? Of course it should. I’ll attend the march and you might like to be there too.
Collins Comments - 24 August 2007
Column: New Zealand National Party
New Zealanders were sickened when little Nia Glassie – aged 3 – was brutalised and later died in hospital. Many New Zealanders felt that her death was, ironically, a respite from what had clearly been an unmerciful, cruel and short life. Most of us wondered at how anybody could be so evil to a child. Most of us wondered at what has happened to sections of our communities that every 5 weeks, one of our babies is killed, usually by those charged with loving and nurturing them.
It is very easy to put money into welfare and into “programmes”. It’s not so easy to understand the mindset of those who are so lacking in empathy and so devoid of human decency and kindness that they will kill a child. What is even less easy is to stop making excuses for such people, to identify and then prevent the abuse.
We were told by the proponents of the anti-smacking law that this law would stop child abuse. It hasn’t. It won’t. We were told that those of us who have smacked our child on the hand or bottom for being naughty or unruly were, at worst, child abusers and, at the least, condoned “beating our babies”. We weren’t and we aren’t. Now with John Key’s intervention, the Police are required to use common sense in deciding whether or not to prosecute – something that was missing from Sue Bradford’s bill.
We need to understand how someone becomes a child abuser - not to make excuses, but to try to stop babies being killed. There are common markers for child abuse. We know that these incidences primarily occur in what is called “dysfunctional families”. James Whakaruru, Coral- Ellen Burrows, Nia Glassie, Soleil Aplin and Olympia Jetson (to name only a few) lived their short lives in severely dysfunctional homes. The families are normally well known to Child Youth and Family and the Police. They usually consist of loose personal relationships, intergenerational welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addictions, intergenerational child abuse including child sexual abuse, criminality, poor literacy and numeracy, lack of empathy for others, despair, lack of personal responsibility and a reliance on a variety of government departments. Mix all these together, add a child, and we have a recipe for disaster.
In the meantime, a group of parents have organised a march against child abuse this Saturday, 25 August, at 10am in Queen Elizabeth II Square, Queen Street, Auckland. Indications are that the Children’s Commissioner and government agencies won’t attend. Apparently, the organisers are so politically incorrect as to call for harsher sentences for child abusers. Should abusing a child be elevated to a principal factor in sentencing? Of course it should. I’ll attend the march and you might like to be there too.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
FI - 287
23 August - Family Integrity #287 -- Questions to be answered
Dear Friends,
I believe it is essential to have the attached questions about the new Section 59 legislation answered authoritatively in order to let parents know where they stand in relation to their legal responsibilities toward their own children. At present one of the most basic and foundational duties of parenting - correcting one’s own children - appears to be a criminal offense.
Can anyone shed some legal light on these issues? Can anyone suggest a lawyer who would be willing to do some pro bono work on these issues?
Is anyone willing to help form a legal defense association for the defense of the many good parents and their children who will inevitably get caught in this malevolent legislation?
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
Here are the questions that must be authoritatively answered.
Following the questions are two items for your ease of reference:
1) a copy of the new Section 59 and
2) a copy of the Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03).
Craig Smith, craig@hef.org.nz, http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, http://www.hef.org.nz
August 2007
Number One: What Is Meant by “Correction”?
A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term “correction” is not defined?
B. Does Parliament need to define “correction” before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently “correction” used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of “correction” no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as “discipline”, “training”, “punishment” or “guidance”?
C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for “correcting” their children using a Police working definition of “correction”? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of “correction” once a body of case law is built up and precedents established?
D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that “correction” of a child is more than just “incidental to good care and parenting” (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of “good care and parenting”? Are the parent‘s beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law?
E. Is “correction” now not to be considered part of “good care and parenting” (Section 59
(1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all?
F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” Are parents now to understand that neither “discipline” nor “punishment” can be considered part of “good care and parenting” unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the term “Force” as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion orculture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong?
B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” What if theparent uses force after the event for the purpose of “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage” at any time in the future “in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence” or “in offensive or disruptive behaviour” as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59?
C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading “Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting”, it says, “The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential”. This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)?
D. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?
Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?
A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail?
B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?
Crimes Act 1964
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 the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a 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 proceeding with a prosecution."
Police Analysis and Guide
2007/03 - Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the
Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(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 the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a 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 proceeding with a prosecution.
Analysis of the New Section Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
• age of the child
• maturity of the child
• ability of the child to reason
• characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
• the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) — nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
• running across a busy road
• touching a hot stove
• inserting a metal object into a power point
• striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a
child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at
types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; ...
2. Hurtful, injurious ...
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting ...
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption ...
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that AreIincidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children.
For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under
this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member's supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.
Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in
the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
• establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
• where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
• depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the
discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child
Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre.
The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the
appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be
more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
Dear Friends,
I believe it is essential to have the attached questions about the new Section 59 legislation answered authoritatively in order to let parents know where they stand in relation to their legal responsibilities toward their own children. At present one of the most basic and foundational duties of parenting - correcting one’s own children - appears to be a criminal offense.
Can anyone shed some legal light on these issues? Can anyone suggest a lawyer who would be willing to do some pro bono work on these issues?
Is anyone willing to help form a legal defense association for the defense of the many good parents and their children who will inevitably get caught in this malevolent legislation?
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
Here are the questions that must be authoritatively answered.
Following the questions are two items for your ease of reference:
1) a copy of the new Section 59 and
2) a copy of the Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03).
Craig Smith, craig@hef.org.nz, http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, http://www.hef.org.nz
August 2007
Number One: What Is Meant by “Correction”?
A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term “correction” is not defined?
B. Does Parliament need to define “correction” before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently “correction” used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of “correction” no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as “discipline”, “training”, “punishment” or “guidance”?
C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for “correcting” their children using a Police working definition of “correction”? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of “correction” once a body of case law is built up and precedents established?
D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that “correction” of a child is more than just “incidental to good care and parenting” (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of “good care and parenting”? Are the parent‘s beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law?
E. Is “correction” now not to be considered part of “good care and parenting” (Section 59
(1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all?
F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” Are parents now to understand that neither “discipline” nor “punishment” can be considered part of “good care and parenting” unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the term “Force” as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion orculture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong?
B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” What if theparent uses force after the event for the purpose of “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage” at any time in the future “in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence” or “in offensive or disruptive behaviour” as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59?
C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading “Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting”, it says, “The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential”. This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)?
D. Does the "reasonable force in the circumstances" of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?
Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?
A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail?
B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?
Crimes Act 1964
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 the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a 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 proceeding with a prosecution."
Police Analysis and Guide
2007/03 - Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the
Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(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 the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a 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 proceeding with a prosecution.
Analysis of the New Section Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
• age of the child
• maturity of the child
• ability of the child to reason
• characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
• the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) — nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
• running across a busy road
• touching a hot stove
• inserting a metal object into a power point
• striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a
child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at
types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; ...
2. Hurtful, injurious ...
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting ...
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption ...
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that AreIincidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children.
For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under
this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member's supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.
Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in
the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
• establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
• where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
• depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the
discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child
Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre.
The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the
appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be
more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
FI - 286
23 August - Family Integrity #286 -- Unity for Liberty; Howick volunteer invitation
Greetings all!
I'm forwarding this on behalf of Unity for Liberty. Please give this your serious consideration.
Thanks.
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
Hi All,
An appeal to all concerned citizens in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
AND
If we want change to the NEW ANTI- PARENTING AUTHORITY LAW then the first step is 300,000 signatures, over 200,000 have been collected, we need another 100,000 by the end of March.
Unity for Liberty is seeking volunteers to assist with the collection of signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
JOB DESCRIPTION: To sit at a table and enjoy the wonderful responses from many other concerned New Zealanders'.
To date we have held two very successful Awareness Campaigns and also manned a table on the main street of Howick. Last Saturday this table collected 360 signatures, that means in total there has been a collection of over 1000 signatures for very little effort. WE HAVE ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE.
TRUTH IS, Unity for Liberty wants to go to other parts of the country and raise AWARENESS there too. We can not do both without your help. Our appeal is for all local Churches, other concerned groups and concerned individuals to stand up and take ownership of this issue in their own area.
At present there is only one table in Howick. With your help we can organize more tables (that means more signatures) around Auckland. Larry Baldock, the initiator of the petition and co leader of Future New Zealand, will be manning the table outside the ANZ, Picton Street, Howick this Saturday morning (25th Aug) till 12pm, (the table will continue until 3pm). We encourage you to come down, meet him, and witness how enjoyable this work really is.
If you can assist please contact
Craig Hill
email craig@unityforliberty.net.nz
mob 021746113
For information about Unity for Liberty and petition forms go to
Web http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz or http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Please pass this on to others who may be interested
If there are Churches/concerned citizens who wish to man tables in other areas "Unity for Liberty" will be very interested in running Awareness Campaigns in these areas to assist in your work. Thanks
We also need more "FEET ON FOOTPATHS", if you can assist here it will be much appreciated
Greetings all!
I'm forwarding this on behalf of Unity for Liberty. Please give this your serious consideration.
Thanks.
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
Hi All,
An appeal to all concerned citizens in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
"SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?"
AND
"SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT GIVE URGENT PRIORITY TO UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE WIDER CAUSES OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN, FAMILY VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE IN NEW ZEALAND?"
If we want change to the NEW ANTI- PARENTING AUTHORITY LAW then the first step is 300,000 signatures, over 200,000 have been collected, we need another 100,000 by the end of March.
Unity for Liberty is seeking volunteers to assist with the collection of signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
JOB DESCRIPTION: To sit at a table and enjoy the wonderful responses from many other concerned New Zealanders'.
To date we have held two very successful Awareness Campaigns and also manned a table on the main street of Howick. Last Saturday this table collected 360 signatures, that means in total there has been a collection of over 1000 signatures for very little effort. WE HAVE ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE.
TRUTH IS, Unity for Liberty wants to go to other parts of the country and raise AWARENESS there too. We can not do both without your help. Our appeal is for all local Churches, other concerned groups and concerned individuals to stand up and take ownership of this issue in their own area.
At present there is only one table in Howick. With your help we can organize more tables (that means more signatures) around Auckland. Larry Baldock, the initiator of the petition and co leader of Future New Zealand, will be manning the table outside the ANZ, Picton Street, Howick this Saturday morning (25th Aug) till 12pm, (the table will continue until 3pm). We encourage you to come down, meet him, and witness how enjoyable this work really is.
If you can assist please contact
Craig Hill
email craig@unityforliberty.net.nz
mob 021746113
For information about Unity for Liberty and petition forms go to
Web http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz or http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Please pass this on to others who may be interested
If there are Churches/concerned citizens who wish to man tables in other areas "Unity for Liberty" will be very interested in running Awareness Campaigns in these areas to assist in your work. Thanks
We also need more "FEET ON FOOTPATHS", if you can assist here it will be much appreciated
FI - 285
21 August 2007 - Family Integrity #285 -- Does Freedom Work?
Dear Friends,
Here is a 4 Minute & 34 second podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony explaining why social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy. There are two options: freedom with its attendant insecurities of ups and downs or total security which is slavery.
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/freedom.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
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,
Here is a 4 Minute & 34 second podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony explaining why social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy. There are two options: freedom with its attendant insecurities of ups and downs or total security which is slavery.
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/freedom.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
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, 22 August 2007
Media
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57264
When good parenting becomes a crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 22, 2007
Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.
The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."
In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government.
Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.
Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.
In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."
The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.
Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.
The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).
Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related special offers:
"Child Training Tips: What I Wish I Knew When My Children Were Young" http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=939
"The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=1683
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala., and the author of "So Help Me God." He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God.
When good parenting becomes a crime
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 22, 2007
Bob Dylan's song "The Times, They are a-Changin'" accurately described the turbulent 1960s in America. Today, countries like New Zealand and Germany are embracing their own times of change as they take from parents the God-given right to discipline and educate their children.
The New Zealand Parliament recently followed the lead of many European Union countries when it made spanking of children, or "smacking" as they call it, a criminal offense. One Parliament member, Pita Sharples, hailed the new law as an important step toward a "brave" new world. "Our support will not be popular with many people ... but we are asking New Zealand to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we don't hit our children."
In Germany, as WorldNetDaily has reported, families who seek to homeschool their children are battling a government that claims it must prevent "parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Parents of homeschooling families, many of whom are Christian, are being arrested and their children forcibly removed to public schools and foster homes because Germany claims its "obligation to provide for education" includes the exclusive right to produce "responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society" – a category that apparently excludes homeschoolers. The European Court of Human Rights gave its stamp of approval last year to this recent tyranny by the German government.
Even some in America are trying to emulate these assaults on parental authority. In February of this year, California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make spanking of children younger than 3 years old a criminal offense punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Fortunately, the bill did not pass this time. And in many states there are increasing attempts to regulate and restrict the growing trend of homeschooling, which seems to pose a threat to proponents of government-monopolized education.
Our Western legal heritage has always recognized that the law of nature and nature's God has given parents – and not the state – the authority to control the education and discipline of their children. Any government usurpation of that family jurisdiction is an unwarranted abuse of power that runs contrary to historical, legal and biblical precepts.
In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765), Sir William Blackstone wrote that while parents have duties to their children with respect to "their maintenance, their protection, and their education," the duty to provide an education is by far "the greatest importance of any." Blackstone further explained that a parent would not confer any considerable benefit upon his child if, after bringing him into the world, "he entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself."
The duty to provide an education for one's child springs directly from the biblical requirement to "[t]rain up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." In Deuteronomy 6:7, we are taught the necessity of teaching God's law "diligently unto thy children," and in Ephesians 6:4 to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
If a parent chooses to educate his or her child outside of the home, Blackstone explains that the parental authority is then delegated "to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis [in the place of a parent]." Government schools, therefore, have no inherent right or duty to educate children, but operate solely on that authority delegated to them by the parents. They certainly have no authority, as the German schools claim, to squelch "separate philosophical convictions" cherished by parents who choose to exercise their authority to teach their children at home.
Regarding discipline, Blackstone noted that a parent "may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner, for this is for the benefit of his education." Of course, child abuse and physical mistreatment are not considered to be "in a reasonable manner" and are rightfully declared to be unlawful. But reasonable discipline, including spanking, should never be prohibited by law.
The Bible is explicit that spanking is part of the authority of a parent. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15). I can still remember, as a boy, my father's words to me before he gave me a good taste of his belt of correction for my disobedience. I now realize that it did "hurt him more than it hurt me" because he loved me. As the Scriptures instruct, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).
Blackstone spoke of a timeless truth when he said that an undisciplined child grows up to be an undisciplined adult, "like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others and shameful to himself." If we allow the state to erode parental authority over discipline and education, we will reap, among other things, higher crime and even lower morality in the next generation. Abandoning God's unchanging law is a sure way to really see the times "a-changin'," but not for the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related special offers:
"Child Training Tips: What I Wish I Knew When My Children Were Young" http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=939
"The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=16&ITEM_ID=1683
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roy Moore is the chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Ala., and the author of "So Help Me God." He is the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building to acknowledge God.
FI - 284
18 August 2007 - Family Integrity #284 -- hate speech effects
Gidday all,
You may remember the homosexual lobby saying that if Section 59 is repealed, they would know they'll have no problem passing hate crime legislation. They won't introduce any just yet since Labour made a deal with UF's Peter Dunne that they'd not introduce any hate crime legislation until after the next election.
They have good reason for being confident....if parents cannot stop the state from usurping their authority over their own children, who will stand up to stop hate crime legislation?
Here is a film of 9 minutes 11 seconds which shows what kind of injustice goes on in the UK, and what we may have in store in the near future.
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
Gidday all,
You may remember the homosexual lobby saying that if Section 59 is repealed, they would know they'll have no problem passing hate crime legislation. They won't introduce any just yet since Labour made a deal with UF's Peter Dunne that they'd not introduce any hate crime legislation until after the next election.
They have good reason for being confident....if parents cannot stop the state from usurping their authority over their own children, who will stand up to stop hate crime legislation?
Here is a film of 9 minutes 11 seconds which shows what kind of injustice goes on in the UK, and what we may have in store in the near future.
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
FI - 283
13 August 2007 - Family Integrity #283 -- Feet on Footpaths (sign the petition) campaigns
For the next two Feet on Footpaths campaigns
1 September 2007
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events
Christchurch Feet on Footpaths Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/1-sept-christchurch.html
The Rodney Feet on Footpaths Awareness Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html
For the next two Feet on Footpaths campaigns
1 September 2007
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events
Christchurch Feet on Footpaths Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/1-sept-christchurch.html
The Rodney Feet on Footpaths Awareness Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Freedom?
RUSHDOONY PODCAST | Our Threatened Freedom
Does Freedom Work?
America's basic governing principle is freedom, because social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy.
In a world run by humanists, failure is blamed upon the family.
Listen Online
http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_36.php
Does Freedom Work?
America's basic governing principle is freedom, because social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy.
In a world run by humanists, failure is blamed upon the family.
Listen Online
http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_36.php
Media
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25013&wf=rsscol
NZ Catholic: Child abuse linked to abortion mentality
By Gavin Abraham
8/13/2007
NZ Catholic (www.nzcatholic.org.nz/)
AUCKLAND, New Zealand (NZ Catholic) – The warranted outrage at the recent horrific cases of child abuse in New Zealand are the end result of a society that allows abortion, Right to Life New Zealand has asserted.
Rotorua three-year-old Nia Glassie died on Aug. 2 after suffering from prolonged abuse. Right to Life's Ken Orr said the community is "outraged" by the injuries Nia received, and by the fact New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse among members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Orr said a $14 million campaign to prevent child abuse is "welcomed as a positive step; however it is doomed to failure.”
"As a society, are we really concerned about preventing violence against our children?" Orr asked. "We are suffering from moral blindness, for we are concerned about protecting born children from violence but not unborn children.”
"If we lose respect for the child in the womb, it is natural that we should lose respect for the born child,” he said. ”Should we be surprised that if we allow the killing of unborn children by abortion, it would follow that there is also going to be violence against born children?"
Bob McCoskrie, the director of Family First New Zealand, pointed out that the way families operate is indicative of how the country operates. He has joined with For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust to devise a five-point plan to address New Zealand's child-abuse problem.
Under the heading "When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up,” the three organizations call for:
- A non-political commission of inquiry to identify effective and achievable solutions to child abuse, and examine specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family structure and breakdown, race-based issues, and poverty and stress;
- An increase of support and resourcing of grassroots community organizations that are working with at-risk families and those attempting to stop abuse in the first place;
- Increased investment in and availability of parenting and marriage programs;
- Media-based anti-child abuse campaigns, in the same way road safety "shock" campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging "positive" parenting and identifying what is abuse;
- Sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially toughened to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community's disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.
- - -
With permission from Gavin of NZ Catholic, New Zealand’s national Catholic newspaper.
NZ Catholic: Child abuse linked to abortion mentality
By Gavin Abraham
8/13/2007
NZ Catholic (www.nzcatholic.org.nz/)
AUCKLAND, New Zealand (NZ Catholic) – The warranted outrage at the recent horrific cases of child abuse in New Zealand are the end result of a society that allows abortion, Right to Life New Zealand has asserted.
Rotorua three-year-old Nia Glassie died on Aug. 2 after suffering from prolonged abuse. Right to Life's Ken Orr said the community is "outraged" by the injuries Nia received, and by the fact New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse among members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Orr said a $14 million campaign to prevent child abuse is "welcomed as a positive step; however it is doomed to failure.”
"As a society, are we really concerned about preventing violence against our children?" Orr asked. "We are suffering from moral blindness, for we are concerned about protecting born children from violence but not unborn children.”
"If we lose respect for the child in the womb, it is natural that we should lose respect for the born child,” he said. ”Should we be surprised that if we allow the killing of unborn children by abortion, it would follow that there is also going to be violence against born children?"
Bob McCoskrie, the director of Family First New Zealand, pointed out that the way families operate is indicative of how the country operates. He has joined with For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust to devise a five-point plan to address New Zealand's child-abuse problem.
Under the heading "When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up,” the three organizations call for:
- A non-political commission of inquiry to identify effective and achievable solutions to child abuse, and examine specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family structure and breakdown, race-based issues, and poverty and stress;
- An increase of support and resourcing of grassroots community organizations that are working with at-risk families and those attempting to stop abuse in the first place;
- Increased investment in and availability of parenting and marriage programs;
- Media-based anti-child abuse campaigns, in the same way road safety "shock" campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging "positive" parenting and identifying what is abuse;
- Sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially toughened to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community's disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.
- - -
With permission from Gavin of NZ Catholic, New Zealand’s national Catholic newspaper.
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Media
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10457582
Toddler's tantrum brings three cops knocking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Louisa Cleave
Karyn Scherer: No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
When Karyn Scherer's 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door.
But that's what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111.
The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm.
Police made no apologies yesterday for responding to an emergency call to the Titirangi property from a neighbour who told them: "I can hear a child screaming ... and I've heard it before."
The call was taken at the Northern Communications Centre and a West Auckland patrol unit was sent.
Waitakere Police commander Inspector Mark O'Connor said: "It's always going to be difficult for police to dismiss such cases without going there.
"We do have a lot of physical abuse cases we actually investigate and if we ever got the chance to have intervened earlier there are a lot of kids who may have never suffered serious injury."
Mr O'Connor said the family's details would not be passed to another agency.
"We do have that process for cases we're concerned about but obviously the officers went there and weren't concerned about anything."
A police national headquarters spokeswoman said all reports were taken seriously.
Toddler's tantrum brings three cops knocking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Louisa Cleave
Karyn Scherer: No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
When Karyn Scherer's 2-year-old threw a bedtime tantrum, the last thing the busy working mother expected was three police officers knocking on her door.
But that's what happened on Saturday night after a neighbour of the senior Herald journalist called 111.
The police who responded said they had to check everything as quickly as possible, given the number of children who suffered harm.
Police made no apologies yesterday for responding to an emergency call to the Titirangi property from a neighbour who told them: "I can hear a child screaming ... and I've heard it before."
The call was taken at the Northern Communications Centre and a West Auckland patrol unit was sent.
Waitakere Police commander Inspector Mark O'Connor said: "It's always going to be difficult for police to dismiss such cases without going there.
"We do have a lot of physical abuse cases we actually investigate and if we ever got the chance to have intervened earlier there are a lot of kids who may have never suffered serious injury."
Mr O'Connor said the family's details would not be passed to another agency.
"We do have that process for cases we're concerned about but obviously the officers went there and weren't concerned about anything."
A police national headquarters spokeswoman said all reports were taken seriously.
Media
http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly94.htm
11 August 2007
The Politics of Law Making
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the trait of governments that don’t know what to do about a difficult problem to simply pass a law. They do this knowing that the law will not work, but at least they will be seen to be doing something. The difficulty is that not only does such knee-jerk legislation rarely solve the problem it invariably creates serious unintended consequences.
This hasty law-making also prevents genuine solutions being found as we saw last week when the government’s microchipping of dogs - a knee-jerk response to a dreadful dog attack back in 2003 - failed to prevent another child being badly mauled.
Another case in point is the “anti-smacking” bill that was recently passed by Parliament in the midst of grave concerns about child abuse following the deaths of the Kahui twins. Proponents of the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act told a disbelieving public that the law change would stop child abuse. The disbelieving public responded by saying that the people who abuse children would take no notice of the law. They said that child abusers would still abuse children but law-abiding parents would face being criminalized and would become fearful of disciplining their children.
Their pleas were ignored, even though before the 2005 election Helen Clark had publicly stated: “I do not support a ban on smacking. I’m opposed to that because I think it defies human nature”. (To view click here http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244)
Unfortunately MMP politics changed the Prime Minister’s mind: after the election, Labour needed to support of the Greens, and the Greens wanted her to support their smacking ban. The rest is history. In spite of 80 percent of the public being opposed to this blatant piece of social engineering, the anti-smacking law - which makes New Zealand parents regulated by some of the most draconian restrictions in the world - was passed by a majority of Parliament.
Meanwhile, more and more children are being killed and maimed because the government has refused to tackle the real problem and replace the Domestic Purposes Benefit, which is not only encouraging women to have children they can’t care for, but pushes a child’s natural protector - their father - away.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish lawyer who visited New Zealand last year in order to dispel the fabrication being promoted by Sue Bradford and her supporters that child abuse had virtually disappeared in Sweden as a result of their smacking ban. Deeply disappointed that the Select Committee ignored her warnings, in her article, “Smacking – those Kiwis must be crazy!” Ruby explains that a smacking ban may only be a first step:
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.
One would hope that the government’s hastily launched domestic violence campaign - $11 million to question sick women in hospital coupled with a $14 million advertising campaign – is not a forerunner to even more Swedish inspired laws!
In her article Ruby highlights the dangerous unintended consequences of anti-smacking laws: 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. (To read the article click the sidebar link http://www.nzcpr.com/guest62.htm or http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/26-july-2007-ruby-harrold-claesson.html)
Dr Robert Larzelere, a leading expert on child discipline from Oklahoma State University, also came to New Zealand to try to talk sense into our politicians. He describes our new law as “the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history”.
He explains: New Zealand’s smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. [Firstly], 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. [Secondly], 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. [Thirdly], the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents. (To read the article “New Zealand’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World” click here http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm#RL)
Already reports are emerging of children calling 111 to report their parents to the Police after learning about their rights at school. Given that the law has only just come into force, this is undoubtedly the tip of what is destined to become a very large iceberg! (To read the article “Boy's 111 'parent assault' call unfounded” click here http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4150344a22395.html)
Writer and economist Thomas Sowell states the obvious truth when he says, "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late." However, by repealing section 59, our government has made the job of socialising and training children to become the hard working, contributing citizens of tomorrow even more difficult.
Meanwhile a new report from the Ministry of Justice, which shows that violent crime committed by teenagers has increased by 39 percent over the last decade, should act as a warning. Rather than discouraging the disciplining of children, we should be giving parents and teachers more powers to encourage them to do all they can to ensure young people understand consequences and learn to take responsibility for their actions and their lives. (To read the report, click here http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/nz-youth-justice-statistics-1992-2006/index.html)
When governments continually introduce stupid laws and useless regulations, the end result is a general malaise within the government agencies that are charged with trying to make the unworkable work. This results in the loss of public confidence in government.
The on-going fiasco over the NCEA has damaged public trust in schools. Setting traffic fine quotas for Police has seriously undermined their role. Incompetence in Corrections has plunged public confidence to rock bottom. Dumping people off hospital waiting lists has eroded faith in the health system. The on-going and blatant abuse of benefits by people who could and should be working has undermined the integrity of welfare. The death and abuse of children who are known to the department of Child Youth and Family, continually erodes confidence in that department, and the recent scandal involving the State Services Commissioner is casting a shadow over the whole government service.
The problem is that Labour has lost sight of its purpose as a government. Governments should not be agents of social change. Instead, their role is to create a framework for citizens to prosper.
In the early days of Labour’s rule, their target was to lift New Zealand’s living standards up into the top half of the OECD. That was a very worthwhile goal. We can only look back with disappointment that they did not vigorously pursue that objective for we would have all been far better off if they had!
The poll this week asks: Do you believe New Zealand children are now more protected from abuse as a result of the repeal of section 59? And: Do you have suggestions of what should be done to stop child abuse? Go to Poll http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm
11 August 2007
The Politics of Law Making
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the trait of governments that don’t know what to do about a difficult problem to simply pass a law. They do this knowing that the law will not work, but at least they will be seen to be doing something. The difficulty is that not only does such knee-jerk legislation rarely solve the problem it invariably creates serious unintended consequences.
This hasty law-making also prevents genuine solutions being found as we saw last week when the government’s microchipping of dogs - a knee-jerk response to a dreadful dog attack back in 2003 - failed to prevent another child being badly mauled.
Another case in point is the “anti-smacking” bill that was recently passed by Parliament in the midst of grave concerns about child abuse following the deaths of the Kahui twins. Proponents of the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act told a disbelieving public that the law change would stop child abuse. The disbelieving public responded by saying that the people who abuse children would take no notice of the law. They said that child abusers would still abuse children but law-abiding parents would face being criminalized and would become fearful of disciplining their children.
Their pleas were ignored, even though before the 2005 election Helen Clark had publicly stated: “I do not support a ban on smacking. I’m opposed to that because I think it defies human nature”. (To view click here http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244)
Unfortunately MMP politics changed the Prime Minister’s mind: after the election, Labour needed to support of the Greens, and the Greens wanted her to support their smacking ban. The rest is history. In spite of 80 percent of the public being opposed to this blatant piece of social engineering, the anti-smacking law - which makes New Zealand parents regulated by some of the most draconian restrictions in the world - was passed by a majority of Parliament.
Meanwhile, more and more children are being killed and maimed because the government has refused to tackle the real problem and replace the Domestic Purposes Benefit, which is not only encouraging women to have children they can’t care for, but pushes a child’s natural protector - their father - away.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish lawyer who visited New Zealand last year in order to dispel the fabrication being promoted by Sue Bradford and her supporters that child abuse had virtually disappeared in Sweden as a result of their smacking ban. Deeply disappointed that the Select Committee ignored her warnings, in her article, “Smacking – those Kiwis must be crazy!” Ruby explains that a smacking ban may only be a first step:
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.
One would hope that the government’s hastily launched domestic violence campaign - $11 million to question sick women in hospital coupled with a $14 million advertising campaign – is not a forerunner to even more Swedish inspired laws!
In her article Ruby highlights the dangerous unintended consequences of anti-smacking laws: 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. (To read the article click the sidebar link http://www.nzcpr.com/guest62.htm or http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/26-july-2007-ruby-harrold-claesson.html)
Dr Robert Larzelere, a leading expert on child discipline from Oklahoma State University, also came to New Zealand to try to talk sense into our politicians. He describes our new law as “the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history”.
He explains: New Zealand’s smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden's ban in three ways. [Firstly], 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. [Secondly], 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. [Thirdly], the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents. (To read the article “New Zealand’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World” click here http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm#RL)
Already reports are emerging of children calling 111 to report their parents to the Police after learning about their rights at school. Given that the law has only just come into force, this is undoubtedly the tip of what is destined to become a very large iceberg! (To read the article “Boy's 111 'parent assault' call unfounded” click here http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/4150344a22395.html)
Writer and economist Thomas Sowell states the obvious truth when he says, "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late." However, by repealing section 59, our government has made the job of socialising and training children to become the hard working, contributing citizens of tomorrow even more difficult.
Meanwhile a new report from the Ministry of Justice, which shows that violent crime committed by teenagers has increased by 39 percent over the last decade, should act as a warning. Rather than discouraging the disciplining of children, we should be giving parents and teachers more powers to encourage them to do all they can to ensure young people understand consequences and learn to take responsibility for their actions and their lives. (To read the report, click here http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/nz-youth-justice-statistics-1992-2006/index.html)
When governments continually introduce stupid laws and useless regulations, the end result is a general malaise within the government agencies that are charged with trying to make the unworkable work. This results in the loss of public confidence in government.
The on-going fiasco over the NCEA has damaged public trust in schools. Setting traffic fine quotas for Police has seriously undermined their role. Incompetence in Corrections has plunged public confidence to rock bottom. Dumping people off hospital waiting lists has eroded faith in the health system. The on-going and blatant abuse of benefits by people who could and should be working has undermined the integrity of welfare. The death and abuse of children who are known to the department of Child Youth and Family, continually erodes confidence in that department, and the recent scandal involving the State Services Commissioner is casting a shadow over the whole government service.
The problem is that Labour has lost sight of its purpose as a government. Governments should not be agents of social change. Instead, their role is to create a framework for citizens to prosper.
In the early days of Labour’s rule, their target was to lift New Zealand’s living standards up into the top half of the OECD. That was a very worthwhile goal. We can only look back with disappointment that they did not vigorously pursue that objective for we would have all been far better off if they had!
The poll this week asks: Do you believe New Zealand children are now more protected from abuse as a result of the repeal of section 59? And: Do you have suggestions of what should be done to stop child abuse? Go to Poll http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm
Abortion in Sweden
We have lost one million citizens
Translation: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
lawyer
http://www.nkmr.org/english/index.htm
Editorial The World today
July 16, 2007
The Christian Democratic party's support of "abortion tourism" is undermining the strength of the coalition government because it weakens one of the parties in the alliance.
If the other parties in the alliance are not attentive to one of the most important issues for one of the parties of the alliance, well, that will do no good for the present government. When we finally got a change of government after 70 years of almost unbroken socialist rule, it is strange that they [the new government] seems incapable to dump law projects that were promoted by the leftists agenda. Many voters, who made a conscious ethical choice, are now going to find themselves disconnected from these parties.
The number of abortions are going to increase and burden the already over laden Swedish health care system. The demands that citizens of other European Union nations will not need to pay for this so-called health-care, are going to be strong.
Our country has already lost one million new citizens through abortions. Wouldn't these people be useful in our society? The birth rate in many European countries is extremely low, due to the use of contraceptives and abortions. Immigration helps in a way to maintain a steady growth and in many immigrant groups the birth rate is considerably higher than the native population.
In the long run, that increases societal tensions, if the more "modern" native population are those who abort their young.
Sweden allows later abortions than other countries. When we welcome pregnant women from these countries and abort those children who, according to the laws of their countries, should be born, Sweden will risk being accused of killing other countries unborn citizens and our thoughts can turn to the way the former eastern European states dealt with budding human lives under the dictatorships of the 20th century.
Vi har förlorat en miljon medborgare
http://www.varldenidag.se/ArticlePages/200707/16/20070716213946_017/20070716213946_017.dbp.asp
Världen idag - 2007-07-16
av Världen idag
Kristdemokraternas ja till ”abortturism” undergräver alliansregeringens styrka genom att försvaga ett av alliansens partier. Borgerligheten klarar sig endast om alla fyra partierna samspelar.
Om inte övriga allianspartier är lyhörda för ett allianspartis absolut viktigaste frågor, ja, då spelar allt detta inte sittande regering i händerna. När vi efter 70 års nära nog obrutet socialistiskt styre äntligen fått till ett maktskifte, är det konstigt att man inte förmår att helt bryta med de utredningar som fått sina direktiv utifrån vänsterns önskemål. Många väljare, som har gjort ett medvetet etiskt val, kommer nu att känna sig utan hemvist i dessa partier.
Aborterna kommer att stiga och belasta en redan överlastad svensk sjukvård. Kraven på att EU-medborgare inte skall betala för denna så kallade sjukvård, kommer att bli starka.
Vårt land har redan förlorat en miljon nya medborgare genom aborter. Skulle de inte ha behövts i vårt samhällsliv? I Europa är födelsetalen i många länder alldeles för låga, på grund av preventivmedel och aborter. Genom invandring hålls befolkningen någorlunda uppe och i många invandrargrupper är nativiteten märkbart högre än i den infödda befolkningen. Långsiktigt ökar då spänningarna, om den mera ”moderna” infödda befolkningen i högre grad utnyttjar abortmöljigheterna.
Sveriges gräns för aborter är högre än i andra länder. När vi välkomnar gravida kvinnor från dessa länder och aborterar de barn de enligt sina hemländers lagar bör föda fram, är risken att man då kan säga att Sverige utför avlivning av andra länders blivande medborgare och tankarna kan, åtminstone i gamla öststater, gå till hur man hanterat det spirande människolivet under 1900-talets diktaturer.
How many have we lost in New Zealand?
Translation: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
lawyer
http://www.nkmr.org/english/index.htm
Editorial The World today
July 16, 2007
The Christian Democratic party's support of "abortion tourism" is undermining the strength of the coalition government because it weakens one of the parties in the alliance.
If the other parties in the alliance are not attentive to one of the most important issues for one of the parties of the alliance, well, that will do no good for the present government. When we finally got a change of government after 70 years of almost unbroken socialist rule, it is strange that they [the new government] seems incapable to dump law projects that were promoted by the leftists agenda. Many voters, who made a conscious ethical choice, are now going to find themselves disconnected from these parties.
The number of abortions are going to increase and burden the already over laden Swedish health care system. The demands that citizens of other European Union nations will not need to pay for this so-called health-care, are going to be strong.
Our country has already lost one million new citizens through abortions. Wouldn't these people be useful in our society? The birth rate in many European countries is extremely low, due to the use of contraceptives and abortions. Immigration helps in a way to maintain a steady growth and in many immigrant groups the birth rate is considerably higher than the native population.
In the long run, that increases societal tensions, if the more "modern" native population are those who abort their young.
Sweden allows later abortions than other countries. When we welcome pregnant women from these countries and abort those children who, according to the laws of their countries, should be born, Sweden will risk being accused of killing other countries unborn citizens and our thoughts can turn to the way the former eastern European states dealt with budding human lives under the dictatorships of the 20th century.
Vi har förlorat en miljon medborgare
http://www.varldenidag.se/ArticlePages/200707/16/20070716213946_017/20070716213946_017.dbp.asp
Världen idag - 2007-07-16
av Världen idag
Kristdemokraternas ja till ”abortturism” undergräver alliansregeringens styrka genom att försvaga ett av alliansens partier. Borgerligheten klarar sig endast om alla fyra partierna samspelar.
Om inte övriga allianspartier är lyhörda för ett allianspartis absolut viktigaste frågor, ja, då spelar allt detta inte sittande regering i händerna. När vi efter 70 års nära nog obrutet socialistiskt styre äntligen fått till ett maktskifte, är det konstigt att man inte förmår att helt bryta med de utredningar som fått sina direktiv utifrån vänsterns önskemål. Många väljare, som har gjort ett medvetet etiskt val, kommer nu att känna sig utan hemvist i dessa partier.
Aborterna kommer att stiga och belasta en redan överlastad svensk sjukvård. Kraven på att EU-medborgare inte skall betala för denna så kallade sjukvård, kommer att bli starka.
Vårt land har redan förlorat en miljon nya medborgare genom aborter. Skulle de inte ha behövts i vårt samhällsliv? I Europa är födelsetalen i många länder alldeles för låga, på grund av preventivmedel och aborter. Genom invandring hålls befolkningen någorlunda uppe och i många invandrargrupper är nativiteten märkbart högre än i den infödda befolkningen. Långsiktigt ökar då spänningarna, om den mera ”moderna” infödda befolkningen i högre grad utnyttjar abortmöljigheterna.
Sveriges gräns för aborter är högre än i andra länder. När vi välkomnar gravida kvinnor från dessa länder och aborterar de barn de enligt sina hemländers lagar bör föda fram, är risken att man då kan säga att Sverige utför avlivning av andra länders blivande medborgare och tankarna kan, åtminstone i gamla öststater, gå till hur man hanterat det spirande människolivet under 1900-talets diktaturer.
How many have we lost in New Zealand?
Media
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10457483&pnum=0#Scene_1
Karyn Scherer: No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Karyn Scherer
The most extraordinary thing happened to me on Saturday night. I was not long out of my nightly dip in the spa pool with the kids, when there was a loud and unfriendly rap on the front door. "Open up," a man's voice boomed.
I scurried to the door in my dressing gown, somehow knowing instantly that it could only be the police, and that some drama must be occurring in our neighbourhood.
How right I was. There were three burly policemen on my doorstep, who shone a torch in my face and aggressively informed me that someone in my neighbourhood was concerned that I might be abusing my children.
Without getting too sanctimonious about it, I should explain that my neighbourhood is suburban Titirangi.
My street is an interesting mix of ages and incomes, but it's certainly not on the list for first-time buyers. Our display of Christmas lights is one of the best in the west, and a couple of houses have recently sold for seven figures.
I was so taken aback by the accusation that all I could muster was a "Goodness me".
I was about to ask if they were sure they had got the right house, but the appearance of my curious pyjama-clad toddlers seemed to confirm their suspicions. Or alleviate them, as it turned out.
Fortunately, my kids can do reasonable impersonations of little blond angels when it suits them, and when one of the cops explained that the alleged abuse appeared to be occurring around bed and bath time, I didn't need to say much more.
I can only assume he had kids of his own who were less than co-operative at the end of a long day.
So they left, but without so much as a smile or a "sorry to bother you", and now I am the talk of the neighbourhood.
I soon realised the only way I was going to be able to live this down was to rationalise it.
I should be thankful, I muttered to myself, that crime in West Auckland is not so bad on Saturday nights that three policemen don't have time to check if people might be on the verge of murdering their children.
It's a shame they weren't around a few hours later when some idiots went down the entire street, twisting the windscreen wipers of all the cars parked on the road - but then as far as I know, nothing like that has ever happened in our street before, either.
But then it started to eat away at me. If I really had been abusing my kids, how would their visit have helped? They didn't even come inside.
I can only suppose my name is on a blacklist somewhere, and if they get another call then Child Youth and Family will be notified.
I've a pretty good idea which neighbour it must have been.
Other children's tantrums are somehow much harder to tolerate than your own children's, and I can only assume they became alarmed by my 2-year-old's world-class hissy fits.
It's true we were once asked to leave the Auckland Museum because he was well overdue for his afternoon nap and had become tired and emotional.
He went through a phase where he would have a complete meltdown if I drove out of the driveway without collecting the newspaper.
From the moment he was born, he has been a challenge. But he does finally appear to be growing out of it.
And in the meantime I have read every child psychology book, and watched every episode of Supernanny, I've been able to manage, to equip myself with the tools to cope. Because I am sickened by parents who hit their children, or indeed beat them to death.
I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right.
But I'm guessing it's the latest wave of concern about child abuse that prompted the police to hammer on my door.
I have a Spanish teenager staying with me at the moment, who is here to learn English. He comes from a wealthy family, and I can't help wondering what he really thinks of New Zealand, because ever since he has been here the country has been obsessed with gangs and child abuse.
The reason I mention his parents' income is because two stints living in Rotorua have convinced me that abuse is not a racial issue - it is an economic and social one.
That's not to say that wealthy people don't abuse their kids, or each other. But as far as I can tell, abuse is mostly born out of the frustration that comes with poverty, a lack of education, and poor role models. Alcohol, drugs and stepfathers also seem to be common factors. In all the brouhaha about Nia Glassie, we seem to have forgotten about Coral-Ellen Burrows.
I know from experience how quickly and easily domestic situations can turn ugly. And how neighbours can be reluctant to interfere.
In the midst of all this national angst, a new couple has moved into our street. Coincidentally, their moving van turned up the same day the police turned up and the windscreen wipers got vandalised.
I had gushed to them earlier in the day what a lovely neighbourhood it was. They admitted to me the next day they were a little alarmed to see the police car in my driveway.
They are both teachers, and one of them starts work this week at our local school, which made headlines in the Herald a few weeks ago when the partner of a teacher attacked some local kids in the school grounds with an axe-head.
Is this really what middle-class New Zealand has become?
The only positive spin I seem to be able to put on it is that at least we are not in denial about our shortcomings. And in some sections of our society, anyway, people still seem to care- and act on those concerns.
But should that happen more often? I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
* Karyn Scherer is the deputy editor of The Business.
Karyn Scherer: No, I don't abuse my kids, but thanks for checking
5:00AM Tuesday August 14, 2007
By Karyn Scherer
The most extraordinary thing happened to me on Saturday night. I was not long out of my nightly dip in the spa pool with the kids, when there was a loud and unfriendly rap on the front door. "Open up," a man's voice boomed.
I scurried to the door in my dressing gown, somehow knowing instantly that it could only be the police, and that some drama must be occurring in our neighbourhood.
How right I was. There were three burly policemen on my doorstep, who shone a torch in my face and aggressively informed me that someone in my neighbourhood was concerned that I might be abusing my children.
Without getting too sanctimonious about it, I should explain that my neighbourhood is suburban Titirangi.
My street is an interesting mix of ages and incomes, but it's certainly not on the list for first-time buyers. Our display of Christmas lights is one of the best in the west, and a couple of houses have recently sold for seven figures.
I was so taken aback by the accusation that all I could muster was a "Goodness me".
I was about to ask if they were sure they had got the right house, but the appearance of my curious pyjama-clad toddlers seemed to confirm their suspicions. Or alleviate them, as it turned out.
Fortunately, my kids can do reasonable impersonations of little blond angels when it suits them, and when one of the cops explained that the alleged abuse appeared to be occurring around bed and bath time, I didn't need to say much more.
I can only assume he had kids of his own who were less than co-operative at the end of a long day.
So they left, but without so much as a smile or a "sorry to bother you", and now I am the talk of the neighbourhood.
I soon realised the only way I was going to be able to live this down was to rationalise it.
I should be thankful, I muttered to myself, that crime in West Auckland is not so bad on Saturday nights that three policemen don't have time to check if people might be on the verge of murdering their children.
It's a shame they weren't around a few hours later when some idiots went down the entire street, twisting the windscreen wipers of all the cars parked on the road - but then as far as I know, nothing like that has ever happened in our street before, either.
But then it started to eat away at me. If I really had been abusing my kids, how would their visit have helped? They didn't even come inside.
I can only suppose my name is on a blacklist somewhere, and if they get another call then Child Youth and Family will be notified.
I've a pretty good idea which neighbour it must have been.
Other children's tantrums are somehow much harder to tolerate than your own children's, and I can only assume they became alarmed by my 2-year-old's world-class hissy fits.
It's true we were once asked to leave the Auckland Museum because he was well overdue for his afternoon nap and had become tired and emotional.
He went through a phase where he would have a complete meltdown if I drove out of the driveway without collecting the newspaper.
From the moment he was born, he has been a challenge. But he does finally appear to be growing out of it.
And in the meantime I have read every child psychology book, and watched every episode of Supernanny, I've been able to manage, to equip myself with the tools to cope. Because I am sickened by parents who hit their children, or indeed beat them to death.
I have written editorials in favour of the anti-smacking law and I have been asked to appear on TV to present my arguments. I have bored my colleagues with my views on the matter, and I must admit I am now wondering if those who argued that the anti-smacking law would come back to bite good parents on the bum might have been right.
But I'm guessing it's the latest wave of concern about child abuse that prompted the police to hammer on my door.
I have a Spanish teenager staying with me at the moment, who is here to learn English. He comes from a wealthy family, and I can't help wondering what he really thinks of New Zealand, because ever since he has been here the country has been obsessed with gangs and child abuse.
The reason I mention his parents' income is because two stints living in Rotorua have convinced me that abuse is not a racial issue - it is an economic and social one.
That's not to say that wealthy people don't abuse their kids, or each other. But as far as I can tell, abuse is mostly born out of the frustration that comes with poverty, a lack of education, and poor role models. Alcohol, drugs and stepfathers also seem to be common factors. In all the brouhaha about Nia Glassie, we seem to have forgotten about Coral-Ellen Burrows.
I know from experience how quickly and easily domestic situations can turn ugly. And how neighbours can be reluctant to interfere.
In the midst of all this national angst, a new couple has moved into our street. Coincidentally, their moving van turned up the same day the police turned up and the windscreen wipers got vandalised.
I had gushed to them earlier in the day what a lovely neighbourhood it was. They admitted to me the next day they were a little alarmed to see the police car in my driveway.
They are both teachers, and one of them starts work this week at our local school, which made headlines in the Herald a few weeks ago when the partner of a teacher attacked some local kids in the school grounds with an axe-head.
Is this really what middle-class New Zealand has become?
The only positive spin I seem to be able to put on it is that at least we are not in denial about our shortcomings. And in some sections of our society, anyway, people still seem to care- and act on those concerns.
But should that happen more often? I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
* Karyn Scherer is the deputy editor of The Business.
Monday, 13 August 2007
Media
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4162166a11.html#Scene_1
Child dialled 111 seeking help
By ESTHER HARWARD - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 12 August 2007
Police will tomorrow arrest a man for allegedly using weapons to beat his two stepsons regularly over nine months, leaving them with bruises all over their upper body.
The Putaruru case is one of hundreds of active child abuse inquiries around the country which police say are stretching resources and causing other crimes to go uninvestigated.
Tokoroa district CIB head Detective Sergeant Kevin Verry said the man would be arrested on Monday and would face several charges.
The brothers, aged 13 and 14, and three younger siblings - who are not believed to have been abused - have been taken into CYF care.
One of the children dialled 111 to get help after schoolfriends urged him to dob the man in.
Verry says it was one of the longest periods of unreported assault on a child he had seen.
He says out of five staff, two work full-time on child abuse cases and three staff take overflow.
"I'm pretty appalled that it's still continuing. Because of this, other investigations like burglaries have been put on the back burner because this takes priority."
Auckland City District's child abuse team head Detective Sergeant Phil Kirkham says his team has "more work than we can actively deal with".
Kirkham says it is common for families of children with non-accidental injuries to draw out or block inquiries by stonewalling or lying, meaning cases could take weeks or months to come to court.
In Waitakere District Court last week a couple was charged with wilful neglect in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering to an 18-month-old boy.
The toddler is recovering from a broken leg and arm in Starship Childrens Hospital after being admitted in July. Doctors said his injuries could have been inflicted weeks before medical attention was sought.
He would have been in excruciating pain when social workers referred him to doctors. The toddler and his siblings were the subject of a care and protection programme.
Those charged with neglect were his 30-year-old biological mother and her 27-year-old partner. The Samoan couple has a "history" with police and social welfare, and blame the boy's older siblings for the injuries.
At birth the boy was adopted by his mother's sister. He was in her care last year when he was taken to hospital with a broken arm.
The adoptive mother, her partner, the biological mother and her partner were living together in a Ranui Housing New Zealand home at the time. All denied inflicting the child's injuries and lashed out at authorities for taking the children into care.
The adults were told to attend anger management and parenting courses run by West Auckland community organisation The Project, but were defiant.
Programme facilitator Taliaoa Filipo Tipoai said: "They were those people who do it for the sake of doing it. They always ask, `When are we finishing? How many more classes must we do?'
"They were really angry when the department took their children. They were really angry."
He said both couples believed no one had the right to tell them how to parent their children.
The family arrived from Samoa about three years ago.
At last week's court appearance the lawyer acting for the biological mother and her partner asked for name suppression so friends and the church community could be told of the charges.
Josefina Fuimaono-Sapolu argued it would come as a shock to the community.
Tipoai said: "That sounds like a cop-out. If it's not a shock to them to abuse the child why do they think it will be a shock to the community who they are?"
The pair's interim name suppression expires tomorrow afternoon.
Child dialled 111 seeking help
By ESTHER HARWARD - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 12 August 2007
Police will tomorrow arrest a man for allegedly using weapons to beat his two stepsons regularly over nine months, leaving them with bruises all over their upper body.
The Putaruru case is one of hundreds of active child abuse inquiries around the country which police say are stretching resources and causing other crimes to go uninvestigated.
Tokoroa district CIB head Detective Sergeant Kevin Verry said the man would be arrested on Monday and would face several charges.
The brothers, aged 13 and 14, and three younger siblings - who are not believed to have been abused - have been taken into CYF care.
One of the children dialled 111 to get help after schoolfriends urged him to dob the man in.
Verry says it was one of the longest periods of unreported assault on a child he had seen.
He says out of five staff, two work full-time on child abuse cases and three staff take overflow.
"I'm pretty appalled that it's still continuing. Because of this, other investigations like burglaries have been put on the back burner because this takes priority."
Auckland City District's child abuse team head Detective Sergeant Phil Kirkham says his team has "more work than we can actively deal with".
Kirkham says it is common for families of children with non-accidental injuries to draw out or block inquiries by stonewalling or lying, meaning cases could take weeks or months to come to court.
In Waitakere District Court last week a couple was charged with wilful neglect in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering to an 18-month-old boy.
The toddler is recovering from a broken leg and arm in Starship Childrens Hospital after being admitted in July. Doctors said his injuries could have been inflicted weeks before medical attention was sought.
He would have been in excruciating pain when social workers referred him to doctors. The toddler and his siblings were the subject of a care and protection programme.
Those charged with neglect were his 30-year-old biological mother and her 27-year-old partner. The Samoan couple has a "history" with police and social welfare, and blame the boy's older siblings for the injuries.
At birth the boy was adopted by his mother's sister. He was in her care last year when he was taken to hospital with a broken arm.
The adoptive mother, her partner, the biological mother and her partner were living together in a Ranui Housing New Zealand home at the time. All denied inflicting the child's injuries and lashed out at authorities for taking the children into care.
The adults were told to attend anger management and parenting courses run by West Auckland community organisation The Project, but were defiant.
Programme facilitator Taliaoa Filipo Tipoai said: "They were those people who do it for the sake of doing it. They always ask, `When are we finishing? How many more classes must we do?'
"They were really angry when the department took their children. They were really angry."
He said both couples believed no one had the right to tell them how to parent their children.
The family arrived from Samoa about three years ago.
At last week's court appearance the lawyer acting for the biological mother and her partner asked for name suppression so friends and the church community could be told of the charges.
Josefina Fuimaono-Sapolu argued it would come as a shock to the community.
Tipoai said: "That sounds like a cop-out. If it's not a shock to them to abuse the child why do they think it will be a shock to the community who they are?"
The pair's interim name suppression expires tomorrow afternoon.
1 Sept - Christchurch
Christchurch Feet on Footpaths Campaign
1 September 07
Summary
Where: Around Riccarton Mall (Riccarton Road, Christchurch)
When: 9:30am – 11:30am 1 September 07
Who: Contact coordinator Andy Moore (chch@unityforliberty.net.nz)
Why: 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. Also, to raise public awareness of Larry Baldock’s petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum and to collect signatures for the petition.
What: We will be focussing on raising the awareness of the public to the anti-parental-authority law. This will involve the volunteers taking a placard and standing on the footpath in the Riccarton Mall area. Others will be holding clipboards, gathering signatures for Larry Baldock's petition http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz. And others will be looking after the trestle tables (we hope to have two at least).
Following several successful Feet on Footpaths campaigns in the North Island, Unity for Liberty is launching it's first public awareness campaign in Christchurch on 1 September 07.
Groups such as Family First NZ and political party Future New Zealand have expressed support for Unity for Liberty's efforts to collect the required 300,000 signatures.
If you are a concerned New Zealander who is concerned about your rights as a parent regarding discipline, and for future generations in New Zealand, then please get in contact with Andy (contact details below), and come along to the Feet on Footpaths campaign on 1 September. You do not have to stay for the whole time - even one or two hours would be much appreciated. Please pass this information on to anyone else you think may be interested.
Contact us
email: chch@unityforliberty.net.nz
cell: 021 1140 751
phone: 03 357 4599
Further Details and more information
Some Helpful Guidelines
What to bring
Frequently asked questions concerning Larry Baldock's petition
"Where do I send the filled-in petition forms to?"
C/- Larry Baldock. P.O. Box 9228 Greerton Tauranga
"What is the Citizens Initiated Referendum? "
The CIR contains two questions for Referendum at the 2008 election. The first one reads:
The second question reads:
We are not asking you to answer yes or no to the petition questions. We are asking if you think that every New Zealander should have the opportunity to say yes or no to these questions in a referendum at the 2008 election. For this to happen, we have to collect 300,000 signatures on these petitions.
A Referendum is where all New Zealand voters are required to say yes or no to a question, so in this case, at the 2008 election, Kiwis will be asked both of the above questions.
"How many signatures do we need?"
Just over 300,000 (10% of the electoral roll)
1 September 07
Summary
Where: Around Riccarton Mall (Riccarton Road, Christchurch)
When: 9:30am – 11:30am 1 September 07
Who: Contact coordinator Andy Moore (chch@unityforliberty.net.nz)
Why: 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. Also, to raise public awareness of Larry Baldock’s petition for a Citizens Initiated Referendum and to collect signatures for the petition.
What: We will be focussing on raising the awareness of the public to the anti-parental-authority law. This will involve the volunteers taking a placard and standing on the footpath in the Riccarton Mall area. Others will be holding clipboards, gathering signatures for Larry Baldock's petition http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz. And others will be looking after the trestle tables (we hope to have two at least).
Following several successful Feet on Footpaths campaigns in the North Island, Unity for Liberty is launching it's first public awareness campaign in Christchurch on 1 September 07.
Groups such as Family First NZ and political party Future New Zealand have expressed support for Unity for Liberty's efforts to collect the required 300,000 signatures.
If you are a concerned New Zealander who is concerned about your rights as a parent regarding discipline, and for future generations in New Zealand, then please get in contact with Andy (contact details below), and come along to the Feet on Footpaths campaign on 1 September. You do not have to stay for the whole time - even one or two hours would be much appreciated. Please pass this information on to anyone else you think may be interested.
Contact us
email: chch@unityforliberty.net.nz
cell: 021 1140 751
phone: 03 357 4599
Further Details and more information
· Make time on Saturday 1th September 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 (Riccarton Mall area). You will carry petition forms and small placards bearing a message that is focused on the issue.
· We aim to be in the Riccarton mall area from 9:30am til 11:30am. 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 9am, 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 Riccarton 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 people do not wish to sign the top petition, you can encourage them to sign the bottom petition - “we oppose child abuse and sign the 2nd question”.
· 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.
What to bring
· Some ball-point pens,
· a clipboard or two,
· copies of the petition which you can download from here ,
· placards with the following messages (as examples): ‘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.
· A good warm jacket.
Frequently asked questions concerning Larry Baldock's petition
"Where do I send the filled-in petition forms to?"
C/- Larry Baldock. P.O. Box 9228 Greerton Tauranga
"What is the Citizens Initiated Referendum? "
The CIR contains two questions for Referendum at the 2008 election. 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?
We are not asking you to answer yes or no to the petition questions. We are asking if you think that every New Zealander should have the opportunity to say yes or no to these questions in a referendum at the 2008 election. For this to happen, we have to collect 300,000 signatures on these petitions.
A Referendum is where all New Zealand voters are required to say yes or no to a question, so in this case, at the 2008 election, Kiwis will be asked both of the above questions.
"How many signatures do we need?"
Just over 300,000 (10% of the electoral roll)
FI - 281
9 August 2007 - Family Integrity #281 -- U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug
Greetings all,
I'm forwarding this on. Do be involved if you can.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:11 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug
A recent Sue Bradford statement
Did you ever imagine there would be such a strong reaction over the"anti-smacking" bill?
B. Worthington, Auckland
It is not an "anti-smacking" bill. I regret that early on the media picked up and promulgated this description, which solely reflects the views of the bill's opponents. It is, among other things, an "anti-beating" bill.
IS THIS YOU, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LAW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN AGENDA.
Hi All,
A quick and gentle reminder, Feet on Footpaths this Sat 11th Aug between 9-12am.
We do need more feet. A number of volunteers could only spend an hour due to prior engagements, they were well rewarded for their time.
If there are any queries I would encourage you to email, it was an incredible campaign last time out and there is no reason it won't be the same again.
The Howick/Pakuranga campaign will be in the Cascades Rd area, if you are in the area make a point of driving past, wave or stop for a chat, be great to see you.
Regards
Craig Hill
www.unityforliberty.net.nz
Greetings all,
I'm forwarding this on. Do be involved if you can.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:11 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug
A recent Sue Bradford statement
Did you ever imagine there would be such a strong reaction over the"anti-smacking" bill?
B. Worthington, Auckland
It is not an "anti-smacking" bill. I regret that early on the media picked up and promulgated this description, which solely reflects the views of the bill's opponents. It is, among other things, an "anti-beating" bill.
IS THIS YOU, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LAW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN AGENDA.
Hi All,
A quick and gentle reminder, Feet on Footpaths this Sat 11th Aug between 9-12am.
We do need more feet. A number of volunteers could only spend an hour due to prior engagements, they were well rewarded for their time.
If there are any queries I would encourage you to email, it was an incredible campaign last time out and there is no reason it won't be the same again.
The Howick/Pakuranga campaign will be in the Cascades Rd area, if you are in the area make a point of driving past, wave or stop for a chat, be great to see you.
Regards
Craig Hill
www.unityforliberty.net.nz
FI - 282
13 August 2007 - Family Integrity #282 -- U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow
To Encourage everyone in relation to signing the petition to bring the outlawing of parental authority (as was done by the rewrite of Section 59) up as a referencdom at the next election, read the following.
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:08 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow
Hi All,
The 2nd Howick/Pakuranga Campaign was an extreme success, not only did we gain more signatures but it was the reaction from the public that speaks volumes.
We soon discovered that the first campaign had primed many to stop and sign this campaign. (at one stage I was forced to carry two clip boards)
This was the reaction from those who had been primed from the first campaign, "I saw you LAST WEEK and did not stop, I'm not going to miss the opportunity this time".
The significance of this reaction is this, EVERYONE who witnessed our first campaign referred to it as LAST WEEK, it was two weeks ago.
FEET ON FOOTPATH campaigns are styled to impact the mind in this way - clearly it succeeded.
Two young men stopped to sign, asked where they can obtain petition forms so they can take them to Auckland University. Another woman drove past the first campaign, arrived home, then decided to return to sign, only to find that we had finished. She was relieved to see us back. She too thought it was LAST WEEK.
The best part for myself were the cups of coffee supplied by local residents.
The LAST WEEK impact is how I measure the success of FEET ON FOOTPATHS but for those who may measure success by signature here it is. We came home with 380 signatures, the first campaign ran at 1.72 signatures a minute, this one came in at 2.11 a minute, some volunteers had to withdraw at the last minute so we achieved MORE WITH LESS.
Looking forward to the Rodney and Christchurch campaigns on the 1st Sept, I encourage you to support both Arna and Andy who are coordinating these events,they are good people working hard for all New Zealanders.
The more FEET the better, any queries please contact.
Will post more details concerning the 1st Sept campaigns on Wed 15th Aug
Craig Hill
021746113
craighill@maxnet.co.nz
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
To Encourage everyone in relation to signing the petition to bring the outlawing of parental authority (as was done by the rewrite of Section 59) up as a referencdom at the next election, read the following.
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:08 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow
Hi All,
The 2nd Howick/Pakuranga Campaign was an extreme success, not only did we gain more signatures but it was the reaction from the public that speaks volumes.
We soon discovered that the first campaign had primed many to stop and sign this campaign. (at one stage I was forced to carry two clip boards)
This was the reaction from those who had been primed from the first campaign, "I saw you LAST WEEK and did not stop, I'm not going to miss the opportunity this time".
The significance of this reaction is this, EVERYONE who witnessed our first campaign referred to it as LAST WEEK, it was two weeks ago.
FEET ON FOOTPATH campaigns are styled to impact the mind in this way - clearly it succeeded.
Two young men stopped to sign, asked where they can obtain petition forms so they can take them to Auckland University. Another woman drove past the first campaign, arrived home, then decided to return to sign, only to find that we had finished. She was relieved to see us back. She too thought it was LAST WEEK.
The best part for myself were the cups of coffee supplied by local residents.
The LAST WEEK impact is how I measure the success of FEET ON FOOTPATHS but for those who may measure success by signature here it is. We came home with 380 signatures, the first campaign ran at 1.72 signatures a minute, this one came in at 2.11 a minute, some volunteers had to withdraw at the last minute so we achieved MORE WITH LESS.
Looking forward to the Rodney and Christchurch campaigns on the 1st Sept, I encourage you to support both Arna and Andy who are coordinating these events,they are good people working hard for all New Zealanders.
The more FEET the better, any queries please contact.
Will post more details concerning the 1st Sept campaigns on Wed 15th Aug
Craig Hill
021746113
craighill@maxnet.co.nz
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
CYFs
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10438944
Baby girl in CYF care drowns in bucket
5:05PM Thursday May 10, 2007
An 11-month-old girl who drowned in a bucket in the Auckland suburb of Lynfield this afternoon was in the care of Child, Youth and Family.
Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said police were called after 12.30pm to the home and were told the child had drowned.
Ms Hegarty said police had carried out preliminary inquiries at the scene of the baby's death and did not believe her death was suspicious.
However several more inquiries were yet to be completed, as was the case with any sudden death, she said.
The child lived at the address with a caregiver of Child, Youth and Family.
A St John ambulance spokesman said the child had her head in a bucket of water.
CPR was performed on the baby but the child died at the scene.
A post-mortem examination was expected to be held tomorrow.
Baby girl in CYF care drowns in bucket
5:05PM Thursday May 10, 2007
An 11-month-old girl who drowned in a bucket in the Auckland suburb of Lynfield this afternoon was in the care of Child, Youth and Family.
Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said police were called after 12.30pm to the home and were told the child had drowned.
Ms Hegarty said police had carried out preliminary inquiries at the scene of the baby's death and did not believe her death was suspicious.
However several more inquiries were yet to be completed, as was the case with any sudden death, she said.
The child lived at the address with a caregiver of Child, Youth and Family.
A St John ambulance spokesman said the child had her head in a bucket of water.
CPR was performed on the baby but the child died at the scene.
A post-mortem examination was expected to be held tomorrow.
Friday, 10 August 2007
Media
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/09/2000575.htm?section=world
NZ rallies against child abuse
By New Zealand correspondent Peter Lewis
Posted Thu Aug 9, 2007 11:36am AEST
People protest outside the Rotorua District Court, after the death of Nia Glassie, a victim of child abuse. (Getty Images: Phil Walter)
Audio: NZ stages silent vigil for child abuse victims (PM) Anti-violence campaigners in New Zealand say they are encouraged by the support they received yesterday for their nationwide silent vigil against child abuse.
Many people in cities and towns across the country heeded their call to pause for a few minutes at lunchtime as a mark of respect to those killed and injured by domestic violence.
If New Zealand did not completely come to a standstill, as organisers might have hoped, it at least slowed down and acknowledged the messages of solidarity carried by those who did.
There was particular empathy on the streets of Rotorua, the home town of three-year-old Nia Glassie, who died after sustaining horrific head and abdominal injuries inflicted on her over weeks, possibly months.
Vigil observers in the town offered their thoughts on why they marked a minute's silence.
"It's just to try and once again encourage people to speak their hearts, you know, don't be scared," one said. "That's why Nia's where she is now, so we're just sending out a message to encourage people to speak up."
'Pleading ignorance'
A small group gathered at the Auckland Children's Hospital, where the critically injured toddler lost her fight for life last Friday.
The group included Oscar-nominated actress Keisha Castle-Hughes, who said it was time all New Zealanders - Maori and Pakeha - claimed ownership and responsibility for what is going wrong in too many families.
"I'm here to support," Castle-Hughes said. "I think it's a very important issue, that for a long time we've all kind of pleaded ignorance.
"Now I have a child of my own, it makes my heart bleed when you see stories and I think that if I can do this one little bit to support, then at least it's something."
Castle-Hughes says the national vigil will increase awareness of the an issue that is easy to ignore.
"I think it's going to be good, it's important for people to stand up and kind of just show that now that we know what's going on, [we will] face the issue head on."
'Wrong message'
But other Maori believe it is time to speak up, not fall silent on the issue of child abuse.
Te Kanikani Tautoko is from a group representing social workers and other health and welfare professionals, Allies of Whanau.
"Silence is never a solution for domestic violence," he said. "We think that it's the wrong message to be sending out."
"We think that a much more appropriate way of addressing the issue is to actually encourage people to talk, to discuss it amongst themselves, to play music - all these sorts of things that involve communication.
"It's only through exchange and dialogue that these sorts of issues can be brought out into the world of light and understanding, so that it can be known and dealt with in an effective manner."
'Taking ownership'
One of the organisers of today's event, Bob McCoskrie of Family First New Zealand, says for too long it has been easier to leave it up to others.
"I guess a lot of people say, 'Does it really make any difference?'," he said.
"I think New Zealanders, we do that a lot, we say, 'Well does it really make a difference?'
"And I guess what we are trying to say is, 'Yes, you can make a difference'. Everyone of us can make a difference if we start to own the problem, rather than sit back and say, 'It's not my race, it's not in my area, it's not my problem, it's not my responsibility'.
"I guess we're saying, 'Well that may be true, but we need to take ownership of the problem'. I want to take ownership of the problem cause I don't want it to happen to any child, whether they live in my area, whether they're my race, whatever."
That is a view shared on the streets of Rotorua.
"We can't eliminate the problem, but we can do little things just to try and minimise it," one resident said.
"I reckon just taking a stance like this, encouraging people to take the stand, maybe people might have the heart to do what is right."
Whether they agree or disagree with the silent vigil, child-abuse activists want New Zealanders to do the same thing - listen.
NZ rallies against child abuse
By New Zealand correspondent Peter Lewis
Posted Thu Aug 9, 2007 11:36am AEST
People protest outside the Rotorua District Court, after the death of Nia Glassie, a victim of child abuse. (Getty Images: Phil Walter)
Audio: NZ stages silent vigil for child abuse victims (PM) Anti-violence campaigners in New Zealand say they are encouraged by the support they received yesterday for their nationwide silent vigil against child abuse.
Many people in cities and towns across the country heeded their call to pause for a few minutes at lunchtime as a mark of respect to those killed and injured by domestic violence.
If New Zealand did not completely come to a standstill, as organisers might have hoped, it at least slowed down and acknowledged the messages of solidarity carried by those who did.
There was particular empathy on the streets of Rotorua, the home town of three-year-old Nia Glassie, who died after sustaining horrific head and abdominal injuries inflicted on her over weeks, possibly months.
Vigil observers in the town offered their thoughts on why they marked a minute's silence.
"It's just to try and once again encourage people to speak their hearts, you know, don't be scared," one said. "That's why Nia's where she is now, so we're just sending out a message to encourage people to speak up."
'Pleading ignorance'
A small group gathered at the Auckland Children's Hospital, where the critically injured toddler lost her fight for life last Friday.
The group included Oscar-nominated actress Keisha Castle-Hughes, who said it was time all New Zealanders - Maori and Pakeha - claimed ownership and responsibility for what is going wrong in too many families.
"I'm here to support," Castle-Hughes said. "I think it's a very important issue, that for a long time we've all kind of pleaded ignorance.
"Now I have a child of my own, it makes my heart bleed when you see stories and I think that if I can do this one little bit to support, then at least it's something."
Castle-Hughes says the national vigil will increase awareness of the an issue that is easy to ignore.
"I think it's going to be good, it's important for people to stand up and kind of just show that now that we know what's going on, [we will] face the issue head on."
'Wrong message'
But other Maori believe it is time to speak up, not fall silent on the issue of child abuse.
Te Kanikani Tautoko is from a group representing social workers and other health and welfare professionals, Allies of Whanau.
"Silence is never a solution for domestic violence," he said. "We think that it's the wrong message to be sending out."
"We think that a much more appropriate way of addressing the issue is to actually encourage people to talk, to discuss it amongst themselves, to play music - all these sorts of things that involve communication.
"It's only through exchange and dialogue that these sorts of issues can be brought out into the world of light and understanding, so that it can be known and dealt with in an effective manner."
'Taking ownership'
One of the organisers of today's event, Bob McCoskrie of Family First New Zealand, says for too long it has been easier to leave it up to others.
"I guess a lot of people say, 'Does it really make any difference?'," he said.
"I think New Zealanders, we do that a lot, we say, 'Well does it really make a difference?'
"And I guess what we are trying to say is, 'Yes, you can make a difference'. Everyone of us can make a difference if we start to own the problem, rather than sit back and say, 'It's not my race, it's not in my area, it's not my problem, it's not my responsibility'.
"I guess we're saying, 'Well that may be true, but we need to take ownership of the problem'. I want to take ownership of the problem cause I don't want it to happen to any child, whether they live in my area, whether they're my race, whatever."
That is a view shared on the streets of Rotorua.
"We can't eliminate the problem, but we can do little things just to try and minimise it," one resident said.
"I reckon just taking a stance like this, encouraging people to take the stand, maybe people might have the heart to do what is right."
Whether they agree or disagree with the silent vigil, child-abuse activists want New Zealanders to do the same thing - listen.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Media
http://news.trendaz.com/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=969729&lang=EN
Council of Europe urges ban on smacking children
( RIA Novosti ) - The Council of Europe (CE) has urged its 47 members to ban corporal punishment of children, a French daily said.
The French newspaper Liberation said Tuesday that the Council of Europe would launch a large-scale campaign aimed at persuading each country to introduce laws against punishing children in the home, and fostering good parenting initiatives next fall.
The campaign aimed at changing parents' attitudes is part of the Council of Europe's program: building a Europe for and with Children. The organization said "banning corporal punishment in the family does not mean persecuting the parents, but changing their behavior."
Back last May, when addressing the 28th conference of European family ministers, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, CE deputy secretary general, called for protecting "the physical and psychological integrity" and "dignity of our children."
The newspaper said just 16 CE members had so far imposed restrictions on corporal punishment of children both in schools and homes. Sweden was the first to impose a ban in 1979, and remains the leader for the number of amendments to their child protection laws.
Council of Europe urges ban on smacking children
( RIA Novosti ) - The Council of Europe (CE) has urged its 47 members to ban corporal punishment of children, a French daily said.
The French newspaper Liberation said Tuesday that the Council of Europe would launch a large-scale campaign aimed at persuading each country to introduce laws against punishing children in the home, and fostering good parenting initiatives next fall.
The campaign aimed at changing parents' attitudes is part of the Council of Europe's program: building a Europe for and with Children. The organization said "banning corporal punishment in the family does not mean persecuting the parents, but changing their behavior."
Back last May, when addressing the 28th conference of European family ministers, Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, CE deputy secretary general, called for protecting "the physical and psychological integrity" and "dignity of our children."
The newspaper said just 16 CE members had so far imposed restrictions on corporal punishment of children both in schools and homes. Sweden was the first to impose a ban in 1979, and remains the leader for the number of amendments to their child protection laws.
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Media
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0708/S00103.htm
Release on Silent Protest
Wednesday, 8 August 2007, 9:46 am
Press Release: Future New Zealand Party
Larry Baldock, Co-leader of Future NZ, and sponsor of the Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) petition said he was strongly in support of today’s silent protest over our awful child abuse in New Zealand.
“When all New Zealander’s have the opportunity to tick the box on next years ballot paper saying yes to the referendum demanding the Government ‘give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ’ they should have in mind the kind of practical and useful action outlined in Five-point action plan called for by Lobby Groups, Family First, For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
The only concern I have is that there is a danger of any Commission of Inquiry becoming just another useless talkfest with yet more reports on what should be done. We already know from extensive research all over the globe that family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress are key factors in all child abuse incidences.
The last thing we need is to have money wasted by the Government on their appointed officials like the Children’s Commissioner and Chief Family Commissioner being involved in an enquiry when their solution to the problem just a few months ago was to ban smacking, thereby making good parents into law breakers and the tough job of parenting even tougher!
We should be listening those experts working at the coal-face of the problem who are already working with at risk families. We need to see an immediate increase in support for the volunteers doing a great job in our communities but with little funding from the Government. It is an outrage that these organisations have to devote so much of their time and resources every year to completing mountains of application forms to seek funding for their activities.
The real answers for us as a nation lie in point 3 of the proposed action plan.
To solve the problem long term we must rebuild a strong marriage culture to reduce the number children who are growing up without the protection and nurture of their dads.
Tougher sentencing for those committing these atrocities is an important part of justice and may play a small role in reducing offences, but if we do not start teaching our young people how to have successful long term relationships with enduring marriages, we simply will not have enough prisons to contain all the violent offenders in our society.
A media based anti-‘child abuse’ campaign would be a useful shock campaign to wake all New Zealander’s up to the reality of what is occurring in our communities, but that must be followed by an equally funded nationwide positive parenting education campaign in the media to provide solutions to those who have never had decent parental role models before the stumbled into parenthood themselves.
I am confident today’s silent protest will be another useful step in addressing our social problems.
However I believe it is essential we complete the two CIR petitions to ensure that the repeal of Sue Bradford’s stupid anti-correction/smacking law and that sensible action as outlined in the 5-point action plan being promoted today is firmly on the political agenda at next years election,” he said.
Mr Baldock called on everyone concerned to achieve a long term solution to the problem of child abuse to continue the work required to complete the CIR petitions on the following questions;
1.) “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
2.) "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ"
ENDS
Release on Silent Protest
Wednesday, 8 August 2007, 9:46 am
Press Release: Future New Zealand Party
Larry Baldock, Co-leader of Future NZ, and sponsor of the Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) petition said he was strongly in support of today’s silent protest over our awful child abuse in New Zealand.
“When all New Zealander’s have the opportunity to tick the box on next years ballot paper saying yes to the referendum demanding the Government ‘give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ’ they should have in mind the kind of practical and useful action outlined in Five-point action plan called for by Lobby Groups, Family First, For the Sake of Our Children Trust and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
The only concern I have is that there is a danger of any Commission of Inquiry becoming just another useless talkfest with yet more reports on what should be done. We already know from extensive research all over the globe that family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress are key factors in all child abuse incidences.
The last thing we need is to have money wasted by the Government on their appointed officials like the Children’s Commissioner and Chief Family Commissioner being involved in an enquiry when their solution to the problem just a few months ago was to ban smacking, thereby making good parents into law breakers and the tough job of parenting even tougher!
We should be listening those experts working at the coal-face of the problem who are already working with at risk families. We need to see an immediate increase in support for the volunteers doing a great job in our communities but with little funding from the Government. It is an outrage that these organisations have to devote so much of their time and resources every year to completing mountains of application forms to seek funding for their activities.
The real answers for us as a nation lie in point 3 of the proposed action plan.
To solve the problem long term we must rebuild a strong marriage culture to reduce the number children who are growing up without the protection and nurture of their dads.
Tougher sentencing for those committing these atrocities is an important part of justice and may play a small role in reducing offences, but if we do not start teaching our young people how to have successful long term relationships with enduring marriages, we simply will not have enough prisons to contain all the violent offenders in our society.
A media based anti-‘child abuse’ campaign would be a useful shock campaign to wake all New Zealander’s up to the reality of what is occurring in our communities, but that must be followed by an equally funded nationwide positive parenting education campaign in the media to provide solutions to those who have never had decent parental role models before the stumbled into parenthood themselves.
I am confident today’s silent protest will be another useful step in addressing our social problems.
However I believe it is essential we complete the two CIR petitions to ensure that the repeal of Sue Bradford’s stupid anti-correction/smacking law and that sensible action as outlined in the 5-point action plan being promoted today is firmly on the political agenda at next years election,” he said.
Mr Baldock called on everyone concerned to achieve a long term solution to the problem of child abuse to continue the work required to complete the CIR petitions on the following questions;
1.) “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
2.) "Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ"
ENDS
Poll
Please vote in this poll about more government intrusion into our private lives
Do you support all women patients in public hospitals being asked if they have experienced physical, verbal or sexual abuse?
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article.asp?aid=10480&iid=793&sud=27
Results as at 2:18 8 August 2007
Yes 49%
No 46%
Don't know 5%
Total Votes: 391
Do you support all women patients in public hospitals being asked if they have experienced physical, verbal or sexual abuse?
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article.asp?aid=10480&iid=793&sud=27
Results as at 2:18 8 August 2007
Yes 49%
No 46%
Don't know 5%
Total Votes: 391
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Child Abuse
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest61.htm
NZCPR Forum
Opinion piece by Bev Adair
4 August 07
Child Abuse, My Story
Bev Adair tells what it is like to be a child at risk
I know how it feels to have a life of apparently no value to anyone. I was born in 1952 in Otahuhu, the middle child of ten children. My Dad was European and my mother was Maori. Both were alcoholics. My mother was a street girl as well.
From my earliest years I lived with violence. I remember knives, blood on walls, being beaten, being locked up in cupboards, being molested by my Dad, being used by my mother's men friends - she put me on show for them.
I remember sitting in the gutter outside the hotel waiting for my mother. When she finally came we used to hide down the back of the garden. We knew if Dad got home and everything wasn't perfect then we'd all get it – especially my mother – and his hobnailed boots could make quite a dent in a body.
When I was nine, my Dad was jailed for molestation. I was taken to the Papakura police station in a car, put in a room, and given away to foster parents. I had little contact with my mother after that. I visited my father in jail and never saw him again. Abuse by foster dads followed.
All ten of us children were separated. I lived in seventeen different foster homes and attended seventeen schools. Although there was stigma in being a Maori foster child, school was mostly a good experience for me. I had some caring teachers and I did well in sport. In fact I was a netball and athletics representative for my schools and districts.
How does abuse affect a child?
I had “shame” written across my forehead. You couldn’t see it - it was hidden deep within me. I used to hide, only coming out when I felt safe. It takes a lot of the right kind of love and care to right the wrongs in the lives of abused and neglected children. They grow up into teenagers and adults but the child within them stays shamed and hurt. We must do something as a community to love this hurt and pain out of the lives of these children who are filled with heartache and shame. Our children are paying a huge price for the fact that we are ignoring those silent screams in so many of the homes in our Nation…..
“Abuse” is a dark place that eats at the heart of who you are. I could always see this young girl – me - looking up into the faces of those all around, searching for a safe place, trying to find an adult who would help me and love me in the way that a child should be loved. Something in me died back then and I have spent a lifetime trying to get back what was taken from me: my sense of value and my sense of being valuable. My father took that from me, and all of the other adults that allowed it to happen, helped to rob me as well.
I paid such a high price for the lack of a safe loving environment in which to grow up. Somebody somewhere must have seen. “Why the silence”, I have asked myself so many times. I was just a baby - why didn’t someone save me? Why wasn’t I worth fighting for? Why didn't the adults in my home stop my mother from putting me on show and allowing her men friends to do what they did to me? Where were the Maori Elders and Whanau?
Physical and sexual abuse robs you, deep within, and you lock yourself away just to survive. You lose all sense of feeling because ‘to feel’ brings pain. You learn to hide away, never to let people get close. Your ability to trust others and believe in yourself is destroyed. You lose feeling – that’s why abused children sometimes cut themselves – it’s the only way to find out whether you are still alive. You lose the ability to love and be loved – there’s a deep cry from within that screams to be let out but you can’t because you are moving from home to home.
Seventeen foster homes. You are their foster child for a reason: they’re doing their duty; their kids need a slave; they need a companion. I was not blonde, blue eyed or cute, so I wasn’t really wanted. You learnt to comply if you wanted to stay. You had to try to be everything to everyone so they would want to keep you. But in the end you didn’t know who you were.
It’s the deep, deep pain - deeper than you can possibly express – that’s the hardest to deal with. Words cut deep. The scars heal, but the words and actions against a child, scars them for life. I had been through 17 homes and schools, terrible physical and sexual abuse, my father jailed for abusing me, divorce, the death of my daughter, loneliness, no-one to call Mum or Dad, no white picket fence, no family to love and protect me.
But then things changed and my life was never the same again. It was April 15 1973 when I had a personal encounter with God. I learnt to trust again, to realise that I am valuable, that I do have a future, that I could experience a love beyond anything that I thought was possible for someone like me. God has made the defining difference to all my choices from that day to this; my inner strength has come from that experience. ‘I AM NOT A VICTIM’. I will not allow those people to rob me anymore; they took enough of my life.
Abuse can rob us for life - or we can choose to break the cycle. That’s what I did. We have to ‘get over ourselves’, our inadequacies and insecurities – all the ‘stuff’ that life has handed to us - and for the sake of our children and the future, join together and find some real answers.
The way forward for New Zealand is to face up to the reality of what is happening. Things should have improved since my childhood but it hasn’t. Instead things have got a whole lot worse.
We have to get rid of welfare benefits - or at least have to work to receive one and then only for a set time. We have stop living in isolation and stop being so selfish. Children have to stop having children. We as a society must stand up and take ownership of what is happening.
Our communities must admit that we have a problem: we need our fathers to stand up and be fathers, and mother to be the nurturers that they were born to be.
No more welfare - get people into work and stop the drinking and the drug-taking. Our kids need adults to take responsibility for their lives and for the lives of their families. Our boys and our girls are desperate for a Mum and a Dad who will love and nurture and care for them, helping them to become all they were intended to be.
We have to stop all this PC stuff and call it like it is. Stop blaming everyone else for our problems. Instead we must look at what we can do for ourselves.
NO MORE HANDOUTS: why is it that all of the programmes that are working and making a difference in our communities are not funded (with no strings attached) by this government? Don’t they want successful programmes or would they rather spend huge amounts of money keeping the administrators employed?
I believe in personal responsibility and asking for help when needed. Our communities have to reach out to help each other and we have to intervene for the sake of our children: we can make smoking unacceptable and make sure seat belts are worn, so why can’t we make it unacceptable to form bad relationships and go from one relationship to another? Why can't we try to make better partner choices so we can make a stable caring home for our children?
Drugs and alcohol and the break down of the family are at the heart of the child abuse problem. How many more talk fests do we have to have to wake up to that fact? I don’t believe poverty is as big an issue as we are lead to believe. It is a factor, for sure, but that’s not an excuse to harm our babies as there are countries with real poverty and they don’t brutalise their children. We have to stop making excuses; instead we have to own the problem and do something about it.
Meanwhile another child is killed and maimed; why can’t we hear the cries?
I am a Maori Mum and Nana and it tears my heart out to see the devastation and brokenness of our young people and children. We have so much going for us as a race. Like all races we have our faults, but let’s own them and not be so precious and defensive.
Please hear the cries of the children. Come on, men and women of New Zealand. Come on, elders of our tribes. Come on, the Maori Party. Come on one and all, whatever your race or creed, let’s stand up and own these problems and do something about them. Each moment we wait another one of our precious babies - born with so much potential and with such a great future - is being brutalised and damaged.
Please, please hear the deep scream of our children. The silence is deafening. Never in all of our history has it been so ‘cool’ to be Maori. Never have we been so well represented in all sectors of life. BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT ALL?
Let’s join hands
Get off welfare
Say NO to drugs and alcohol
Create a good work ethic
Stop hiding behind our culture as an excuse for not working
Get rid of the lie that the world owes us anything
Stop the acceptance of violence in our culture
Stop the acceptance of incest
Come on Mums and Dads - be the adults you are meant to be, and if you don’t know how to parent, then find out!
Our children need adults, not best friends; they need us to be their parents not their mate…
Our children need to know their boundaries
Education must become a priority
Don’t allow the so called ‘shame’ of not being educated yourself, to stop you asking for help; your children will love you for trying…
Look at who we allow near our children
Take responsibility for our children
YOU are the primary care giver regardless of the extended family
YOU must nurture your children and make sure they have the right friends in their lives…
Our children are desperate for heroes and you as their parents should be that hero. Don’t give that away to celebrities and sports people. Sure it’s nice to have them, but have you looked closely at the lives of these so call celebrities? Have a closer look – it is you who should be influencing your child …and for good!
If you would like to comment on this issue please click http://www.nzcpr.com/letters.htm
NZCPR Forum
Opinion piece by Bev Adair
4 August 07
Child Abuse, My Story
Bev Adair tells what it is like to be a child at risk
I know how it feels to have a life of apparently no value to anyone. I was born in 1952 in Otahuhu, the middle child of ten children. My Dad was European and my mother was Maori. Both were alcoholics. My mother was a street girl as well.
From my earliest years I lived with violence. I remember knives, blood on walls, being beaten, being locked up in cupboards, being molested by my Dad, being used by my mother's men friends - she put me on show for them.
I remember sitting in the gutter outside the hotel waiting for my mother. When she finally came we used to hide down the back of the garden. We knew if Dad got home and everything wasn't perfect then we'd all get it – especially my mother – and his hobnailed boots could make quite a dent in a body.
When I was nine, my Dad was jailed for molestation. I was taken to the Papakura police station in a car, put in a room, and given away to foster parents. I had little contact with my mother after that. I visited my father in jail and never saw him again. Abuse by foster dads followed.
All ten of us children were separated. I lived in seventeen different foster homes and attended seventeen schools. Although there was stigma in being a Maori foster child, school was mostly a good experience for me. I had some caring teachers and I did well in sport. In fact I was a netball and athletics representative for my schools and districts.
How does abuse affect a child?
I had “shame” written across my forehead. You couldn’t see it - it was hidden deep within me. I used to hide, only coming out when I felt safe. It takes a lot of the right kind of love and care to right the wrongs in the lives of abused and neglected children. They grow up into teenagers and adults but the child within them stays shamed and hurt. We must do something as a community to love this hurt and pain out of the lives of these children who are filled with heartache and shame. Our children are paying a huge price for the fact that we are ignoring those silent screams in so many of the homes in our Nation…..
“Abuse” is a dark place that eats at the heart of who you are. I could always see this young girl – me - looking up into the faces of those all around, searching for a safe place, trying to find an adult who would help me and love me in the way that a child should be loved. Something in me died back then and I have spent a lifetime trying to get back what was taken from me: my sense of value and my sense of being valuable. My father took that from me, and all of the other adults that allowed it to happen, helped to rob me as well.
I paid such a high price for the lack of a safe loving environment in which to grow up. Somebody somewhere must have seen. “Why the silence”, I have asked myself so many times. I was just a baby - why didn’t someone save me? Why wasn’t I worth fighting for? Why didn't the adults in my home stop my mother from putting me on show and allowing her men friends to do what they did to me? Where were the Maori Elders and Whanau?
Physical and sexual abuse robs you, deep within, and you lock yourself away just to survive. You lose all sense of feeling because ‘to feel’ brings pain. You learn to hide away, never to let people get close. Your ability to trust others and believe in yourself is destroyed. You lose feeling – that’s why abused children sometimes cut themselves – it’s the only way to find out whether you are still alive. You lose the ability to love and be loved – there’s a deep cry from within that screams to be let out but you can’t because you are moving from home to home.
Seventeen foster homes. You are their foster child for a reason: they’re doing their duty; their kids need a slave; they need a companion. I was not blonde, blue eyed or cute, so I wasn’t really wanted. You learnt to comply if you wanted to stay. You had to try to be everything to everyone so they would want to keep you. But in the end you didn’t know who you were.
It’s the deep, deep pain - deeper than you can possibly express – that’s the hardest to deal with. Words cut deep. The scars heal, but the words and actions against a child, scars them for life. I had been through 17 homes and schools, terrible physical and sexual abuse, my father jailed for abusing me, divorce, the death of my daughter, loneliness, no-one to call Mum or Dad, no white picket fence, no family to love and protect me.
But then things changed and my life was never the same again. It was April 15 1973 when I had a personal encounter with God. I learnt to trust again, to realise that I am valuable, that I do have a future, that I could experience a love beyond anything that I thought was possible for someone like me. God has made the defining difference to all my choices from that day to this; my inner strength has come from that experience. ‘I AM NOT A VICTIM’. I will not allow those people to rob me anymore; they took enough of my life.
Abuse can rob us for life - or we can choose to break the cycle. That’s what I did. We have to ‘get over ourselves’, our inadequacies and insecurities – all the ‘stuff’ that life has handed to us - and for the sake of our children and the future, join together and find some real answers.
The way forward for New Zealand is to face up to the reality of what is happening. Things should have improved since my childhood but it hasn’t. Instead things have got a whole lot worse.
We have to get rid of welfare benefits - or at least have to work to receive one and then only for a set time. We have stop living in isolation and stop being so selfish. Children have to stop having children. We as a society must stand up and take ownership of what is happening.
Our communities must admit that we have a problem: we need our fathers to stand up and be fathers, and mother to be the nurturers that they were born to be.
No more welfare - get people into work and stop the drinking and the drug-taking. Our kids need adults to take responsibility for their lives and for the lives of their families. Our boys and our girls are desperate for a Mum and a Dad who will love and nurture and care for them, helping them to become all they were intended to be.
We have to stop all this PC stuff and call it like it is. Stop blaming everyone else for our problems. Instead we must look at what we can do for ourselves.
NO MORE HANDOUTS: why is it that all of the programmes that are working and making a difference in our communities are not funded (with no strings attached) by this government? Don’t they want successful programmes or would they rather spend huge amounts of money keeping the administrators employed?
I believe in personal responsibility and asking for help when needed. Our communities have to reach out to help each other and we have to intervene for the sake of our children: we can make smoking unacceptable and make sure seat belts are worn, so why can’t we make it unacceptable to form bad relationships and go from one relationship to another? Why can't we try to make better partner choices so we can make a stable caring home for our children?
Drugs and alcohol and the break down of the family are at the heart of the child abuse problem. How many more talk fests do we have to have to wake up to that fact? I don’t believe poverty is as big an issue as we are lead to believe. It is a factor, for sure, but that’s not an excuse to harm our babies as there are countries with real poverty and they don’t brutalise their children. We have to stop making excuses; instead we have to own the problem and do something about it.
Meanwhile another child is killed and maimed; why can’t we hear the cries?
I am a Maori Mum and Nana and it tears my heart out to see the devastation and brokenness of our young people and children. We have so much going for us as a race. Like all races we have our faults, but let’s own them and not be so precious and defensive.
Please hear the cries of the children. Come on, men and women of New Zealand. Come on, elders of our tribes. Come on, the Maori Party. Come on one and all, whatever your race or creed, let’s stand up and own these problems and do something about them. Each moment we wait another one of our precious babies - born with so much potential and with such a great future - is being brutalised and damaged.
Please, please hear the deep scream of our children. The silence is deafening. Never in all of our history has it been so ‘cool’ to be Maori. Never have we been so well represented in all sectors of life. BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH IT ALL?
Let’s join hands
Get off welfare
Say NO to drugs and alcohol
Create a good work ethic
Stop hiding behind our culture as an excuse for not working
Get rid of the lie that the world owes us anything
Stop the acceptance of violence in our culture
Stop the acceptance of incest
Come on Mums and Dads - be the adults you are meant to be, and if you don’t know how to parent, then find out!
Our children need adults, not best friends; they need us to be their parents not their mate…
Our children need to know their boundaries
Education must become a priority
Don’t allow the so called ‘shame’ of not being educated yourself, to stop you asking for help; your children will love you for trying…
Look at who we allow near our children
Take responsibility for our children
YOU are the primary care giver regardless of the extended family
YOU must nurture your children and make sure they have the right friends in their lives…
Our children are desperate for heroes and you as their parents should be that hero. Don’t give that away to celebrities and sports people. Sure it’s nice to have them, but have you looked closely at the lives of these so call celebrities? Have a closer look – it is you who should be influencing your child …and for good!
If you would like to comment on this issue please click http://www.nzcpr.com/letters.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
