FI - 301

29 October 2007 - Family Integrity #301 -- Bloggers make salient points


Dear Friends,

Here are some insightful comments from bloggers about the mum who was FOR Bradford's bill and has now become a victim of the bill.

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if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...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




From: http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-has-started.html
New Zealand Conservative
Sunday, October 28, 2007
It has started
Front page of today's Sunday Star Times: School dobs mum to CYF for smacking son's hand. There were several interesting aspects to this case:

1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a "child abuser" for a simple smack on the hand.

2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn't.

3. She did not want to be named because she 'fears losing her children'. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.

4. We can see that it will not take much for people to 'dob in' parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been 'educated' that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?

5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but 'reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse'. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.

Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the "crime" of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?




From: http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/bradford-attacking-the-friends-of-section-59-repeal/
Bradford Attacking the Friends of Section 59 Repeal
Oct 28th, 2007 by scrubone

Here's a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

"My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property."
[the bill is]..."a necessary step in a complex process of weaning our society away from a culture of violence and abuse of our children."
..."we view children as second class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults."
"I reject absolutely the idea that parents have a God-given right to beat the evil out of their kids."
(Pretending the opposition to the bill was just religious extremism was a very common tactic. )

They [The Auckland District Law Society] suggest that, rather than outright repeal, the degree and nature of acceptable violence against children can be calibrated - e.g. by saying that it is okay to use force against three to twelve-year-olds and that there should be no 'striking above the shoulder'. I believe all children have the right to live in violence-free homes.
"My Bill to repeal Section 59 aims to remove the defence of reasonable force from parents who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury."
"Those who perpetrate the abuse and successfully apply section 59 as their defence remain unaccountable to our justice system."
That's a selection of quotes from this post.

Clearly, this woman would never have thought of herself as "seeing children as her property", or propagating a "culture of violence" or viewing her kids as "second class citizens". She never thought that she would be treated the same was as parents who "who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury".

No, she was and remains a good parent. She never imagined she would be placed in the above categories.

But now she has. She's been reduced to a state of fear, afraid of the Government using it's power to remove her children.

She was not afraid because she supported Sue Bradford, believed her statements, but discovered too late the nature of propaganda - whipping up hatred against a non-existent threat, to disguise the real effect. By doing this Sue managed to get get many victims of the law to support it.

But even worse, while opponents saw the curtain of state infiltration into families dropping and took proper precautions, this poor woman kept doing what good parents do, never thinking that someday she might be the target of the bill who's objectives she supported.

Just one of the more disgusting end results of the lies of Sue Bradford - reducing the enemies of child abuse to living in fear.