Hi Everyone.
The recent horrific cases of child abuse are tragic. What has happened to our country that such things can happen?
I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A SILENT PROTEST THIS WEDNESDAY AT 12.12PM. (see attachment) WE WILL BE GATHERING IN THE RED SQUARE IN TAURANGA AT 12 NOON THIS WEDNESDAY IN SUPPORT OF THIS. PERHAPS YOU COULD ORGANISE A SIMILAR GATHERING IN YOUR AREA.
And remember to take your petition forms along with you.
Not only has the Bradford Law been a complete red herring, and waste of time in dealing with this serious issue, we now have the Government announcing they want everyone to start looking over their neighbours fence to see if there are any signs of abuse happening around us.
I believe there is some merit in suggesting that we should all be trying to take responsibility for this in our communities. However the problem is that when Parliament have been so irresponsible in failing to distinguish between appropriate discipline and abuse, we will now see neighbours reporting good parents to the authorities and the development of a secret police state climate of fear.
Our second petition calling for action that will address the REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE now becomes even more relevant. We must see the Bradford law repealed and the completion of both petitions to ensure these referendums are held at next years elections are an essential part of the strategy to make changes.
With only another 100,000 signatures required before March 1st 2008 I am confident that we can meet out target. Things have definitely slowed down over the winter months but I am sure we will see more volunteers getting active again once the weather improves and the outdoor events begin again. Events like the 'Home Show,' 'Boat Show' and other festivals give us all the opportunity to present the petitions to a crowd.
I recommend you take the time to look at Family First's website http://www.familyfirst.org.nz and join their mailing list for up to date developments on this issue. In one of Bob’s recent updates he lists all the abuse cases that have occurred since the Amended sec 59 law was passed.
Congratulations must go to Andy Moore and his team who collected approx 1400 signatures a few weeks ago in a concerted effort in Christchurch. It is clear that there is still an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who want to sign if they are presented with the petition.
I also want to congratulate Craig Hill and his team called Unity for Liberty for their efforts.
This organisation, Unity for Liberty, has been formed assist in completing the Petitions. They have had a successful campaign "Feet on Footpaths" in Howick last week. This has the potential to be multiplied in other centres. In fact I believe there is already a plan to expand the idea in Rodney.
If you would be interested in more details contact Craig Hill at craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Warm regards everyone,
Let’s not grow weary in the battle,
Larry Baldock
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Monday, 6 August 2007
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Letter to Kathryn Rich from Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Letter to Kathryn Rich, MP from Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
INSTITUTET FÖR OFFENTLIG OCH INTERNATIONELL RÄTT
Stockholm, May 24, 2007
Uggelviksgatan 9
S-114 27 Stockholm
Tel. 08-21 62 44, 11 49 89
Fax (+) 46-8-21 38 74
Ms Kathryn Rich, MP
Parliament Buildings
Molesworth Street
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
Fax 0064-4 471 25 51
Dear Ms Rich.
The text of your recent speech in Parliament, given May 16, 2007, was brought to my attention and since it shows a number of misunderstandings of the Swedish legal landscape, I have considered it called for to contribute some clarifications. Hopefully, they will mitigate the application in New Zealand of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act, and for such reasons I think this letter should be distributed to all the MP:s.
First of all, however, I categorically reject your characterization of Mrs Ruby Harrold- Claesson as a “false expert” and a “fruit loop, to say the least”. You have fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm, you mention Dr Diesen but there are more of that same breed. On this count, I regret that you have not been aware of my letter of January 11, 2007 to Ms Deborah Coddington which explains the situation, and I feel entitled now to include a copy of that letter for your consideration. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/family-integrity-154-letter-from.html
Secondly, as a matter of fact all the examples of bad treatment of children that you mention in your speech seem to be such as fall under the criminalization of assault and battery in Swedish penal law, a long standing criminalization, antedating the legislation of 1979 which you use as a model for the NZ law reform. Consequently, your examples are simply not relevant.
Thirdly, then, what is the 1979 legislation about? The centrepiece is the phrase which I set out in my letter to Ms Coddington “A child may not be exposed to corporal chastisement or other insulting treatment”. You will perhaps recall that when the matter was introduced in Sweden, there was very little Swedish discussion : “Characteristically for Sweden, public debate on the issue was muted” it was said in Time Magazine, April 2, 1979, p. 24. But a parallel to the Swedish legislation was introduced in neighbouring Finland with a very active, Swedish-speaking elite (1983).
This piece of legislation – Act on the custody of children and visiting rights (lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt : FFS 1983 No 361) – has a provision which is almost verbatim a copy of the Swedish provision, but in Finland it released a public discussion among the lawyers responsible for the drafting of the provision which is quite explicit - in contrast to what took place in Sweden. The main purpose of the act as discussed among the Finnish lawyers was to abolish the line of subordination between parents and children. For such reasons, the family tie could never be a defence in case of opposition between parents and child. This had fargoing consequences. You could not do anything to your child that you could not do to a stranger passerby in the street. That includes all forms of punishment, and it is interesting to note that even the question of libel and slander is being discussed, as indeed ‘psychological violence’ practiced upon a child – e.g. ironizing over a child’s stupid remarks. It is true that one expert thought that court cases of children complaining of being libelled and slandered by their parents were unlikely to occur and so far I have not heard of any such cases, but they certainly were possible the way the legislation was drafted. The following categorical remark of the Government’s legal draftsman, Matti Savolainen, would seem to close the discussion : “There is from now no relationship of subordination, no right to force or punish a child that could be a defence against a prosecution” “The relationship of subordination between parents and children is explicitly abolished.”
This emancipation of the children from the family tie should of course be seen in light of the extremes of 1968 atmosphere which pervaded the 1970s in so many places, and to which the Swedish minority Government of 1978 had fallen prey, with a following in finlandized Finland where Marxism was an accepted philosophy in the hope of getting Soviet approval. In that atmosphere, the family unit was seen as an agent of conservatism, standing in the way of society´s quick transformation into true Socialism, and consequently something to undermined and sabotaged by people of the correct mind.
Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation. It may be an eye-opener to realize that the situations depicted in the enclosed cartoons represent criminal offences under the present Swedish legislation. The cartoonists do not seem to realize this, nor those do it who propagate for copying the Swedish legislation,
Sincerely yours
Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
Internet-anvisningar
Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt
Finns på: http://www.oior.se
Prof. em Jacob W.F. Sundberg nås via e-mail på
sundberg@ioir.se
INSTITUTET FÖR OFFENTLIG OCH INTERNATIONELL RÄTT
Stockholm, May 24, 2007
Uggelviksgatan 9
S-114 27 Stockholm
Tel. 08-21 62 44, 11 49 89
Fax (+) 46-8-21 38 74
Ms Kathryn Rich, MP
Parliament Buildings
Molesworth Street
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
Fax 0064-4 471 25 51
Dear Ms Rich.
The text of your recent speech in Parliament, given May 16, 2007, was brought to my attention and since it shows a number of misunderstandings of the Swedish legal landscape, I have considered it called for to contribute some clarifications. Hopefully, they will mitigate the application in New Zealand of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act, and for such reasons I think this letter should be distributed to all the MP:s.
First of all, however, I categorically reject your characterization of Mrs Ruby Harrold- Claesson as a “false expert” and a “fruit loop, to say the least”. You have fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm, you mention Dr Diesen but there are more of that same breed. On this count, I regret that you have not been aware of my letter of January 11, 2007 to Ms Deborah Coddington which explains the situation, and I feel entitled now to include a copy of that letter for your consideration. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/family-integrity-154-letter-from.html
Secondly, as a matter of fact all the examples of bad treatment of children that you mention in your speech seem to be such as fall under the criminalization of assault and battery in Swedish penal law, a long standing criminalization, antedating the legislation of 1979 which you use as a model for the NZ law reform. Consequently, your examples are simply not relevant.
Thirdly, then, what is the 1979 legislation about? The centrepiece is the phrase which I set out in my letter to Ms Coddington “A child may not be exposed to corporal chastisement or other insulting treatment”. You will perhaps recall that when the matter was introduced in Sweden, there was very little Swedish discussion : “Characteristically for Sweden, public debate on the issue was muted” it was said in Time Magazine, April 2, 1979, p. 24. But a parallel to the Swedish legislation was introduced in neighbouring Finland with a very active, Swedish-speaking elite (1983).
This piece of legislation – Act on the custody of children and visiting rights (lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt : FFS 1983 No 361) – has a provision which is almost verbatim a copy of the Swedish provision, but in Finland it released a public discussion among the lawyers responsible for the drafting of the provision which is quite explicit - in contrast to what took place in Sweden. The main purpose of the act as discussed among the Finnish lawyers was to abolish the line of subordination between parents and children. For such reasons, the family tie could never be a defence in case of opposition between parents and child. This had fargoing consequences. You could not do anything to your child that you could not do to a stranger passerby in the street. That includes all forms of punishment, and it is interesting to note that even the question of libel and slander is being discussed, as indeed ‘psychological violence’ practiced upon a child – e.g. ironizing over a child’s stupid remarks. It is true that one expert thought that court cases of children complaining of being libelled and slandered by their parents were unlikely to occur and so far I have not heard of any such cases, but they certainly were possible the way the legislation was drafted. The following categorical remark of the Government’s legal draftsman, Matti Savolainen, would seem to close the discussion : “There is from now no relationship of subordination, no right to force or punish a child that could be a defence against a prosecution” “The relationship of subordination between parents and children is explicitly abolished.”
This emancipation of the children from the family tie should of course be seen in light of the extremes of 1968 atmosphere which pervaded the 1970s in so many places, and to which the Swedish minority Government of 1978 had fallen prey, with a following in finlandized Finland where Marxism was an accepted philosophy in the hope of getting Soviet approval. In that atmosphere, the family unit was seen as an agent of conservatism, standing in the way of society´s quick transformation into true Socialism, and consequently something to undermined and sabotaged by people of the correct mind.
Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation. It may be an eye-opener to realize that the situations depicted in the enclosed cartoons represent criminal offences under the present Swedish legislation. The cartoonists do not seem to realize this, nor those do it who propagate for copying the Swedish legislation,
Sincerely yours
Jacob W.F. Sundberg
Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus
Internet-anvisningar
Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt
Finns på: http://www.oior.se
Prof. em Jacob W.F. Sundberg nås via e-mail på
sundberg@ioir.se
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Excellent Letter to MPs from Kirsty
Subject: Please, for the sake of New Zealand families, do not allow the Child Discipline Bill to pass into law.
Dear National Party Members of Parliament
The following is an excellent article, and I would urge you to read it - it should take no more than ten minutes of your time - but it shows why the Bill to repeal Section 59 is so dangerous to families in this country and why we must not allow it to pass. The article exposes the ideology that is driving the Bill to repeal Section 59, with or without John Key's "Claytons" amendment (the amendment you have when you don't have an amendment).
The "amendment" that John Key supplied provides absolutely no protection or defence of a parent if they are accused, rightly or wrongly, of "smacking" their children. It is simply a tinkering with words. It was deeply disappointing to see the leader of the Opposition colluding with the Labour and Green parties in this matter. What hope does the electorate have of balanced government when there is no effective
opposition; when there is no alternative point of view given except that which the State dictates?
This bill is not about protecting children, or dealing with NZ's child abuse tragedy - it is about allowing government, through government agencies like CYFS, to control individual families and to threaten us with the removal of our children, should we not wish to follow their agendas.
The Bill to repeal Section 59 is of special threat to traditional families, where we seek to forge strong bonds of love, support and commitment within the individual family. We may never be prosecuted for "smacking" our children, but if we are accused of such action, we could well lose custody of our children to a government agency while we battle through the courts to regain our "right" to exist as a family. This is totalitarianism, as seen in Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Nazi
Germany.
I urge you not to allow this travesty of justice to happen here in New Zealand. I urge you to vote with your conscience, not be directed by a party ideology, when the time comes to vote on the Child Discipline/Repeal of Section 59 Bill. Please, for the sake of New Zealand families, do not allow this Bill to pass into law.
Kirsty
Hamilton
How to control adults by means of 'children's rights'.
By Lynette Burrows
This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 - 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.
Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want.
It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights' one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word 'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity.
So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an 'age of
consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active - there was nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.
Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children's rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children's rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools.
Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.
Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.
Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children's rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child's best interest.
Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children's rights people have been 'out to lunch'.
Another major area where a serious question of children's rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school.
Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.
The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly 'corporal' in school - but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don't address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.
Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children's rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.
The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children 'in care' are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don't go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children's homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.
When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children's rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with
premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?
The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-forward.
It has provided a good many jobs and the children's rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children's rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.
Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.
For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children's rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic 'partner', mostly as limited companies.
Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of 'children's rights'. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case
was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be 'liberated' from their parents care and control.
Not
having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.
These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.
The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970's, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.
As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children's rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. 'Unwitting' was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its de
facto abolition too.
However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of 'children's rights' clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists' agenda.
Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.
Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children's rights. I don't know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of 'progressive' innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children's rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their
literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.
Well, it isn't true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed 'The Nordic Committee for Human Rights', which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi's copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to 'the parental state' rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.
Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called 'Save the Children' was begun during the 1930's in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be
'saved' from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type.
Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .
Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.
The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer - incidentally, the only black one in Sweden - and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children's rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children
are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.
To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second
city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand - in one year!
No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have
children.
Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it.
Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.
Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times.
The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school.
They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their 'best interest'. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!
By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.
The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.
When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, 'Can you see many children being taken?' she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.
After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.
It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers.
They are, by training and tradition, Marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called 'fathers', even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be - but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.
Thus, anybody who wanted to further a Marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantilise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children's rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.
It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies.
Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble - they simply could not do without them.
Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the 'wrong' sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually
transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.
Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of 'snatched' children in Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there - looking after other people's stolen children.
It is incongruous, isn't it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else's. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.
Dear National Party Members of Parliament
The following is an excellent article, and I would urge you to read it - it should take no more than ten minutes of your time - but it shows why the Bill to repeal Section 59 is so dangerous to families in this country and why we must not allow it to pass. The article exposes the ideology that is driving the Bill to repeal Section 59, with or without John Key's "Claytons" amendment (the amendment you have when you don't have an amendment).
The "amendment" that John Key supplied provides absolutely no protection or defence of a parent if they are accused, rightly or wrongly, of "smacking" their children. It is simply a tinkering with words. It was deeply disappointing to see the leader of the Opposition colluding with the Labour and Green parties in this matter. What hope does the electorate have of balanced government when there is no effective
opposition; when there is no alternative point of view given except that which the State dictates?
This bill is not about protecting children, or dealing with NZ's child abuse tragedy - it is about allowing government, through government agencies like CYFS, to control individual families and to threaten us with the removal of our children, should we not wish to follow their agendas.
The Bill to repeal Section 59 is of special threat to traditional families, where we seek to forge strong bonds of love, support and commitment within the individual family. We may never be prosecuted for "smacking" our children, but if we are accused of such action, we could well lose custody of our children to a government agency while we battle through the courts to regain our "right" to exist as a family. This is totalitarianism, as seen in Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Nazi
Germany.
I urge you not to allow this travesty of justice to happen here in New Zealand. I urge you to vote with your conscience, not be directed by a party ideology, when the time comes to vote on the Child Discipline/Repeal of Section 59 Bill. Please, for the sake of New Zealand families, do not allow this Bill to pass into law.
Kirsty
Hamilton
How to control adults by means of 'children's rights'.
By Lynette Burrows
This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 - 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.
Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want.
It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights' one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word 'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity.
So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an 'age of
consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active - there was nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.
Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children's rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children's rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools.
Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.
Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.
Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children's rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child's best interest.
Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children's rights people have been 'out to lunch'.
Another major area where a serious question of children's rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school.
Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.
The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly 'corporal' in school - but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don't address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.
Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children's rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.
The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children 'in care' are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don't go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children's homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.
When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children's rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with
premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?
The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-forward.
It has provided a good many jobs and the children's rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children's rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.
Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.
For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children's rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic 'partner', mostly as limited companies.
Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of 'children's rights'. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case
was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be 'liberated' from their parents care and control.
Not
having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.
These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.
The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970's, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.
As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children's rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. 'Unwitting' was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its de
facto abolition too.
However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of 'children's rights' clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists' agenda.
Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.
Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children's rights. I don't know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of 'progressive' innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children's rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their
literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.
Well, it isn't true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed 'The Nordic Committee for Human Rights', which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi's copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to 'the parental state' rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.
Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called 'Save the Children' was begun during the 1930's in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be
'saved' from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type.
Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .
Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.
The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer - incidentally, the only black one in Sweden - and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children's rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children
are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.
To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second
city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand - in one year!
No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have
children.
Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it.
Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes - even when they are murderous tyrants - so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.
Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times.
The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school.
They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their 'best interest'. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!
By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.
The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.
When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, 'Can you see many children being taken?' she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.
After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children's rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.
It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers.
They are, by training and tradition, Marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don't much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called 'fathers', even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be - but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.
Thus, anybody who wanted to further a Marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantilise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children's rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.
It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies.
Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble - they simply could not do without them.
Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the 'wrong' sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually
transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.
Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of 'snatched' children in Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there - looking after other people's stolen children.
It is incongruous, isn't it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else's. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
Letter to MPs from Saudi Arabia
Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament
I just receive a news that you may voting on May 16 for a Bill that will make illegal for parents to correct their children, this mean remove from the parents their duty of educated the children in the good behavior.
Please, do not make of New Zealand a country where the family will be debilitate, a country where children did not respects the elders. God has giving to the parents the authority to educate the children, not do try to go against God wills, this is not the smart decision.
I am afraid that if this re-written Section 59-Parental Control, becomes a law, I will never travel to your country, will be no more a save place to visit.
Please, Vote for the Families,
Blessings
P............
Telephone Saudi Arabia
Cellphone Todd
Address Saudi Arabia:
Al Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia
I just receive a news that you may voting on May 16 for a Bill that will make illegal for parents to correct their children, this mean remove from the parents their duty of educated the children in the good behavior.
Please, do not make of New Zealand a country where the family will be debilitate, a country where children did not respects the elders. God has giving to the parents the authority to educate the children, not do try to go against God wills, this is not the smart decision.
I am afraid that if this re-written Section 59-Parental Control, becomes a law, I will never travel to your country, will be no more a save place to visit.
Please, Vote for the Families,
Blessings
P............
Telephone Saudi Arabia
Cellphone Todd
Address Saudi Arabia:
Al Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia
OPEN LETTER TO MR JOHN KEY
----- Original Message -----
From: David Lane
To: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Cc: bill.english@parliament.govt.nz
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:53 AM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MR JOHN KEY
Urgent Attention
John Key
National Party Leader
OPEN LETTER:
CALLING ON ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD'S FLAWED BILL
Dear Mr John Key
The Eathorne's tragic case (see press release copied to all National MPs below) shows what can happen when police discretion is misapplied - charges (of assault on a child under 14 years s. 194 of Crimes Act) were pursued for inconsequential domestic force - and good parents were criminalised (convictions and heavy fines were issued).
Of course this (unsound use of discretion) can happen under the current Crimes Act relating to s. 194 but at least a s.59 defence is actually open to parents NOW if they find themselves facing charges for using "unreasonable force" in the correction of their children (assault) and they believe they have done nothing more than apply reasonable force for correction in the circumstances. Under s. 59 (2) "The reasonableness of the force used is A QUESTION OF FACT". Under Bradford's flawed bill, even with the new amendment, in Court cases where it can be established that some element of correction was involved the question of "reasonableness" is NOT a question of fact that can be examined by the Court.
If Bradford's flawed bill becomes law there is NO defence open to such a parent, IF police, following a misapplication of their discretion, lay charges for force used for correction. (We are assuming here that there are facts that provide compelling evidence contra the police. that in reality the incident was (1) "inconsequential" in terms of force used and (2) not in the "public interest" to pursue. The problem is that 1 & 2 remain undefined! and these facts CANNOT be tested in Court).
Under Bradford's legislation - once in place .......
A good and honest parent charged with assault for using what he/she genuinely believed at the time was only inconsequential force for correction, would be doing wrong not to plead guilty in Court of committing an "offence" under the Crimes Act. Why? Because the use of all force in such circumstances involving correction is defined as a criminal "offence" - an ILLEGAL act. There is NO defence open to them. They have no alternative if they wish to be dealt with leniantly by the Court. Like the Eathornes they face the full wrath of the Court Judge who made an example of them. All the police prosecutor has to do, goaded by CYFS, is to establish that the force had some sort of consequenes e.g. the child cried or felt aggrieved, so therefore the incident was NOT inconsequential.
Inconsequential means WITHOUT consequennces.
HOWEVER, a (disciplinary) smack is supposed to hurt and cause some minor discomfort. A smack with a wet bus ticket for wrongdoing does not constitute correction. The vast majority of NZ parents (> 80%) believe they should have a right in law - a justification - for using firm but fair corporal discipline where reasonable force is applied - eg a firm hard smack to the open hand or padded back-side. Bradford's bill would remove any and all such justification and brand all parents who use force for correction as those who commit illegal acts (crimes).
Just in case you think that a clever defence lawyer COULD argue that the force was "incosequential" therefore there should be no conviction.... THis is NOT an option. The questions of whether the force was "inconsequential" or in "the public interest" is NOT A QUESTION oF FACT; they are only matters that inform police discretion PRIOR to charging the offender. AGAIN THEY ARE NOT MATTERS OF FACT.
In the current law section 2 states: "THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FORCE USED IS A QUESTION OF FACT."
The Court decision CANNOT turn on either of these questions. Why? Because they NOT questions of fact. The police, by proceeding with the prosecution have passed over these issued and settled these matters. They cannot cannot be revisited in Court as a ground for concluding that no offence was committed.
The person charged, has nowhere to turn in law to secure a line of defence.
We CALL ON YOU AND ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD'S FLAWED BILL
PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL NATIONAL MPS ARE ABLE TREAT THIS VOTE AS A CONSCIENCE VOTE
Yours sincerely
David Lane
Secretary
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
From: David Lane
To: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Cc: bill.english@parliament.govt.nz
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:53 AM
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MR JOHN KEY
Urgent Attention
John Key
National Party Leader
OPEN LETTER:
CALLING ON ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD'S FLAWED BILL
Dear Mr John Key
The Eathorne's tragic case (see press release copied to all National MPs below) shows what can happen when police discretion is misapplied - charges (of assault on a child under 14 years s. 194 of Crimes Act) were pursued for inconsequential domestic force - and good parents were criminalised (convictions and heavy fines were issued).
Of course this (unsound use of discretion) can happen under the current Crimes Act relating to s. 194 but at least a s.59 defence is actually open to parents NOW if they find themselves facing charges for using "unreasonable force" in the correction of their children (assault) and they believe they have done nothing more than apply reasonable force for correction in the circumstances. Under s. 59 (2) "The reasonableness of the force used is A QUESTION OF FACT". Under Bradford's flawed bill, even with the new amendment, in Court cases where it can be established that some element of correction was involved the question of "reasonableness" is NOT a question of fact that can be examined by the Court.
If Bradford's flawed bill becomes law there is NO defence open to such a parent, IF police, following a misapplication of their discretion, lay charges for force used for correction. (We are assuming here that there are facts that provide compelling evidence contra the police. that in reality the incident was (1) "inconsequential" in terms of force used and (2) not in the "public interest" to pursue. The problem is that 1 & 2 remain undefined! and these facts CANNOT be tested in Court).
Under Bradford's legislation - once in place .......
A good and honest parent charged with assault for using what he/she genuinely believed at the time was only inconsequential force for correction, would be doing wrong not to plead guilty in Court of committing an "offence" under the Crimes Act. Why? Because the use of all force in such circumstances involving correction is defined as a criminal "offence" - an ILLEGAL act. There is NO defence open to them. They have no alternative if they wish to be dealt with leniantly by the Court. Like the Eathornes they face the full wrath of the Court Judge who made an example of them. All the police prosecutor has to do, goaded by CYFS, is to establish that the force had some sort of consequenes e.g. the child cried or felt aggrieved, so therefore the incident was NOT inconsequential.
Inconsequential means WITHOUT consequennces.
HOWEVER, a (disciplinary) smack is supposed to hurt and cause some minor discomfort. A smack with a wet bus ticket for wrongdoing does not constitute correction. The vast majority of NZ parents (> 80%) believe they should have a right in law - a justification - for using firm but fair corporal discipline where reasonable force is applied - eg a firm hard smack to the open hand or padded back-side. Bradford's bill would remove any and all such justification and brand all parents who use force for correction as those who commit illegal acts (crimes).
Just in case you think that a clever defence lawyer COULD argue that the force was "incosequential" therefore there should be no conviction.... THis is NOT an option. The questions of whether the force was "inconsequential" or in "the public interest" is NOT A QUESTION oF FACT; they are only matters that inform police discretion PRIOR to charging the offender. AGAIN THEY ARE NOT MATTERS OF FACT.
In the current law section 2 states: "THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FORCE USED IS A QUESTION OF FACT."
The Court decision CANNOT turn on either of these questions. Why? Because they NOT questions of fact. The police, by proceeding with the prosecution have passed over these issued and settled these matters. They cannot cannot be revisited in Court as a ground for concluding that no offence was committed.
The person charged, has nowhere to turn in law to secure a line of defence.
We CALL ON YOU AND ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD'S FLAWED BILL
PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL NATIONAL MPS ARE ABLE TREAT THIS VOTE AS A CONSCIENCE VOTE
Yours sincerely
David Lane
Secretary
Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
Letter to MPs
Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament
Ms Bradford said she was ''over the moon'' with the development and said it was a tribute to MMP that all parties were able to work out a compromise.
"The children of New Zealand will be safe."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4045584a10.html
The children of New Zealand will NOT be safe:
1. This will make no difference to the children who are savagely beaten and violently abused every day. Most of their parents have not been listening to this debate. Mostly they don't listen to or watch the news. They mostly watch videos and pornography. This kind of abuse is already illegal.
2. It will make no difference to the nearly 18,000 babies that are violently pulled apart in the womb every day in New Zealand. Why do the people who are so concerned about amending Section 59 do nothing about these defenceless babies?
3. Some children of good parents will be torn from their loving parents and put into CYFs care where they will be abused. Will that be an MPs children? Some parents will be criminalized. Or will an MP volunteer to be the first family to go to court as a test case for lightly smacking their children or putting their children in "Time Out" against their will. I think not.
Blessings
Barbara Smith
Palmerston North
Ms Bradford said she was ''over the moon'' with the development and said it was a tribute to MMP that all parties were able to work out a compromise.
"The children of New Zealand will be safe."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4045584a10.html
The children of New Zealand will NOT be safe:
1. This will make no difference to the children who are savagely beaten and violently abused every day. Most of their parents have not been listening to this debate. Mostly they don't listen to or watch the news. They mostly watch videos and pornography. This kind of abuse is already illegal.
2. It will make no difference to the nearly 18,000 babies that are violently pulled apart in the womb every day in New Zealand. Why do the people who are so concerned about amending Section 59 do nothing about these defenceless babies?
3. Some children of good parents will be torn from their loving parents and put into CYFs care where they will be abused. Will that be an MPs children? Some parents will be criminalized. Or will an MP volunteer to be the first family to go to court as a test case for lightly smacking their children or putting their children in "Time Out" against their will. I think not.
Blessings
Barbara Smith
Palmerston North
Monday, 7 May 2007
Section 59
Gidday,
In my opinion, until they define "correction" and declare whether it includes concepts such as "discipline", "training", "chastisement" and "punishment". We simply cannot know what is in store for us. In addition, "force" is generally understood to be physical force, but the definition of "assault" in the Crimes Act includes even the threat of force and even a gesture on the part of person B where person C interpret's B's gesture to be a threat, even though person B had not
that intention!!
In addition to all of this, is it not true, do you not read it so, that given the bill to be voted on soon now reads:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
given that since subsection 2 condemns the action of parental correction, and given that subsection 3 says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1; is it not logical to say that should a jury be undecided as to whether the force used was for this new "evil" called "correction" of an offensive behaviour or whether is was just to "prevent" an offensive behaviour (a la subsection 1c), does not subsection 3 REQUIRE the jury to settle on the "correction" interpretation and therefore find the parent guilty of correction? That is, does not this bill say that when reasonable doubt exists, the jury is required to find the parent guilty, even though in all the rest of our law system, juries cannot find you guilty unless it is proven BEYOND
all reasonable doubt?
It seems this bill is totally and completely unworkable, except, just as Police Commissioner Broad has said, they will work it out with the help of the courts and the police complaints authority....meaning, family after family will be ground up through the system so that they can work out the required definitions and settle on some useful precedents.
Very scary.
Regards,
Craig Smith
In my opinion, until they define "correction" and declare whether it includes concepts such as "discipline", "training", "chastisement" and "punishment". We simply cannot know what is in store for us. In addition, "force" is generally understood to be physical force, but the definition of "assault" in the Crimes Act includes even the threat of force and even a gesture on the part of person B where person C interpret's B's gesture to be a threat, even though person B had not
that intention!!
In addition to all of this, is it not true, do you not read it so, that given the bill to be voted on soon now reads:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of --
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
given that since subsection 2 condemns the action of parental correction, and given that subsection 3 says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1; is it not logical to say that should a jury be undecided as to whether the force used was for this new "evil" called "correction" of an offensive behaviour or whether is was just to "prevent" an offensive behaviour (a la subsection 1c), does not subsection 3 REQUIRE the jury to settle on the "correction" interpretation and therefore find the parent guilty of correction? That is, does not this bill say that when reasonable doubt exists, the jury is required to find the parent guilty, even though in all the rest of our law system, juries cannot find you guilty unless it is proven BEYOND
all reasonable doubt?
It seems this bill is totally and completely unworkable, except, just as Police Commissioner Broad has said, they will work it out with the help of the courts and the police complaints authority....meaning, family after family will be ground up through the system so that they can work out the required definitions and settle on some useful precedents.
Very scary.
Regards,
Craig Smith
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Organisations OPPOSING 'Anti-Smacking' Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: admin@familyfirst.org.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 9:20 a.m.
Subject: Organisations OPPOSING 'Anti-Smacking' Bill
Please forward to your local MP
Just some of the
Organisations OPPOSING ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
1. Family First NZ
2. Sensible Sentencing Trust
3. For the Sake of our Children Trust
4. Grey Power
5. Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust
6. Lifespring Pasefika Trust
7. NZ Centre for Political Debate
8. Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (SPCS)
9. Family Life International
10. Kip McGrath Education Centres NZ
11. Focus on the Family NZ
12. Crosspower Ministries Otara
13. Samoa Community Council of Waitakere City
14. FamilyLife NZ
15. Vision Network
16. Affirming Works (AW) South Auckland
17. Parents Against Negative Intervention by CYFS (PANIC)
18. Families Apart Require Equality (FARE)
19. Pacific Resource Centre Dunedin
20. Drug Proofing Your Kids (DYPK)
21. West Health Fono Trust
22. Family Education Network
23. HandsonEqualParent Trust
24. Voice for Life
25. section59.org
26. Home Education Foundation
27. Affinity Child & Family Services
28. Children and Family Work
29. MOPS NZ [ Mothers of Preschoolers]
30. Drug-ARM Tauranga
31. Right to Life New Zealand Inc
32. Youthline Manukau
33. Drug Arm (Blenheim) Inc
34. Sowers Trust
35. Parents Against Bullying Support Group
36. Family Integrity
37. VOICE Hibiscus Coast
38. Family TV
39. VOICE Helensville
40. Courageous Women
41. Trinity Broadcasting Network South Pacific Ltd
42. Marriage Works
43. Franklin Christian Lobby
44. GCC Public Affairs Group
45. Promise Keepers NZ Ministry With Men Coaching
46. VOICE Waikato
47. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
48. Family Ministries New Zealand (YWAM)
And probably many more – who unfortunately are government funded, and are therefore concerned that their public opposition to this Bill will affect their funding.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |
From: admin@familyfirst.org.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 9:20 a.m.
Subject: Organisations OPPOSING 'Anti-Smacking' Bill
Please forward to your local MP
Just some of the
Organisations OPPOSING ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
1. Family First NZ
2. Sensible Sentencing Trust
3. For the Sake of our Children Trust
4. Grey Power
5. Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust
6. Lifespring Pasefika Trust
7. NZ Centre for Political Debate
8. Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (SPCS)
9. Family Life International
10. Kip McGrath Education Centres NZ
11. Focus on the Family NZ
12. Crosspower Ministries Otara
13. Samoa Community Council of Waitakere City
14. FamilyLife NZ
15. Vision Network
16. Affirming Works (AW) South Auckland
17. Parents Against Negative Intervention by CYFS (PANIC)
18. Families Apart Require Equality (FARE)
19. Pacific Resource Centre Dunedin
20. Drug Proofing Your Kids (DYPK)
21. West Health Fono Trust
22. Family Education Network
23. HandsonEqualParent Trust
24. Voice for Life
25. section59.org
26. Home Education Foundation
27. Affinity Child & Family Services
28. Children and Family Work
29. MOPS NZ [ Mothers of Preschoolers]
30. Drug-ARM Tauranga
31. Right to Life New Zealand Inc
32. Youthline Manukau
33. Drug Arm (Blenheim) Inc
34. Sowers Trust
35. Parents Against Bullying Support Group
36. Family Integrity
37. VOICE Hibiscus Coast
38. Family TV
39. VOICE Helensville
40. Courageous Women
41. Trinity Broadcasting Network South Pacific Ltd
42. Marriage Works
43. Franklin Christian Lobby
44. GCC Public Affairs Group
45. Promise Keepers NZ Ministry With Men Coaching
46. VOICE Waikato
47. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
48. Family Ministries New Zealand (YWAM)
And probably many more – who unfortunately are government funded, and are therefore concerned that their public opposition to this Bill will affect their funding.
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |
Monday, 2 April 2007
Open letter to Sue Bradford
Dear Sue
You said in the press release below:
"Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not be able to get away with savagely beating children."
My question to you is: Who got away with savagely beating their children?
Regards
Barbara Smith
P O Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4014017a11.html
Govt won't be taking over Bradford's bill - PM
By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Monday, 2 April 2007
The Government is not going to adopt Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking, Prime Minister Helen Clark said today.
It had been considering turning the controversial bill into government legislation so it could speed up its progress in Parliament and shut down the row over its provisions.
But Miss Clark said even if that was done, its opponents could still hold it up and it would probably not be passed into law before the three-week Easter recess.
Because it is a member's bill it can only be debated every second Wednesday Parliament is sitting, which is why it has taken so long up to now and its opponents have had many opportunities to stage protests and demonstrations.
"I really think it just has to take its course as a member's bill," Miss Clark said at her post-cabinet press conference.
"It will be debated in May. There is really no reason to change the way in which it is being handled."
The Government considered speeding it up so it could get it off the agenda before the May budget, but Miss Clark said keeping things the way they were would give supporters more time to have their say.
"What we've seen in the last couple of weeks is the very substantial organisations in our community, like Plunket, Barnados, Save the Children and many others who have decades of service to children in New Zealand come out and strongly support the bill," she said.
"And in the intervening period I'm sure the organisations that have been really shocked by the campaign against the bill will have a chance to have their voices heard."
The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals if they even lightly smack their children.
Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not be able to get away with savagely beating children.
The Government had been waiting for New Zealand First to take a position on whether it should be turned into a government bill, but Miss Clark said the party had not opposed the idea and Cabinet made the decision to keep it a member's bill.
There is a solid 63 votes behind the bill, enough to pass it into law, and two National MPs are expected to add their backing to it as well.
A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.
You said in the press release below:
"Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not be able to get away with savagely beating children."
My question to you is: Who got away with savagely beating their children?
Regards
Barbara Smith
P O Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4014017a11.html
Govt won't be taking over Bradford's bill - PM
By PETER WILSON - NZPA | Monday, 2 April 2007
The Government is not going to adopt Sue Bradford's bill to change the law on smacking, Prime Minister Helen Clark said today.
It had been considering turning the controversial bill into government legislation so it could speed up its progress in Parliament and shut down the row over its provisions.
But Miss Clark said even if that was done, its opponents could still hold it up and it would probably not be passed into law before the three-week Easter recess.
Because it is a member's bill it can only be debated every second Wednesday Parliament is sitting, which is why it has taken so long up to now and its opponents have had many opportunities to stage protests and demonstrations.
"I really think it just has to take its course as a member's bill," Miss Clark said at her post-cabinet press conference.
"It will be debated in May. There is really no reason to change the way in which it is being handled."
The Government considered speeding it up so it could get it off the agenda before the May budget, but Miss Clark said keeping things the way they were would give supporters more time to have their say.
"What we've seen in the last couple of weeks is the very substantial organisations in our community, like Plunket, Barnados, Save the Children and many others who have decades of service to children in New Zealand come out and strongly support the bill," she said.
"And in the intervening period I'm sure the organisations that have been really shocked by the campaign against the bill will have a chance to have their voices heard."
The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.
Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals if they even lightly smack their children.
Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not be able to get away with savagely beating children.
The Government had been waiting for New Zealand First to take a position on whether it should be turned into a government bill, but Miss Clark said the party had not opposed the idea and Cabinet made the decision to keep it a member's bill.
There is a solid 63 votes behind the bill, enough to pass it into law, and two National MPs are expected to add their backing to it as well.
A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.
Thursday, 29 March 2007
29 March 2007 - email from Larry Baldock
Hi everyone,
What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.
The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!
If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.
The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.
What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbviZdqN5zs&mode=related&search=
After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.
More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!
Warm regards
Larry Baldock
What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.
The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!
If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.
The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.
What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbviZdqN5zs&mode=related&search=
After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.
More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!
Warm regards
Larry Baldock
Saturday, 17 March 2007
"An open letter to the Prime Minister from the Timaru mother"
"An open letter to the Prime Minister from the Timaru mother"
Dear Ms Clark,
I refer to your many comments in the media in respect of repeal of S59 about people hitting their children with riding crops and getting off.
I am the mother who disciplined her son with the riding crop. This was controlled discipline, not an angry assault. My son had just swung a baseball bat at his stepfathers head. He could have killed my husband.
After the discipline we had a well behaved, loving and compliant boy. A riding crop is designed to give a stinging sensation but is not injurious. There were no marks left on my son at all.
I may have been acquitted, but I certainly have not "got off". Even though I was acquitted CYF seized custody of my son, tore our family apart and nearly three years later I am still fighting to have him returned as CYF do not agree with the fact I physically disciplined, even though all forms of non physical discipline had not worked with this child and this was the only thing that did.
My almost 15 year old son is desperate to be at home where he feels loved and secure.
I am a responsible Mum who dearly loves her children. My sons behaviour was unacceptable. I corrected it. Repeal of S59 removes a parents ability to correct a child. Many politicans have lied about our case in order to bolster their agendas.
I am fed up with people who were not party to the facts of our case using it as a reason to make a very bad law change.
We have been through hell at the hands of CYF.
My son was placed on Risperdal whilst in CYF care to modify his behaviour. This has been banned in the states for use on children because of the life threatenning side effects. The side effects of Risperdal and the psychological damage to him by being removed from a family who love him, were much worse than the thirty second sting to his bottom.
I am still fighting for my son to be returned to my custody. The hell we have been through at the hands of CYF is a worse punishment than any the court could have issued if I had been found guilty.
Please do not for one moment think I got off. CYF have seen that I did not.
I ask that you reconsider your stance on repeal of S59.
Your constituents do not support your stance according to online polls.
If you support repeal you are supporting the destruction of many more families through state intervention as the police will involve CYF (as they do already) when investigating complaints. Even if the complaints are unfounded CYF will still hold children from their parents. I know this as I am a support worker for PANIC (parents against negative intervention of CYF) and have seen many cases like this.
Ms Clark you are not a Mum, so you can only speculate what hell it is for a parent to have her child taken away. This punishment is worse than any that could be inflicted on a parent, short of a child dying.
I might have been acquitted but have been punished as if guilty.
Please do not quote our case again, unless you are properly representing the facts. Tell the public how the state have punished me even though I was found NOT GUILTY.
If you wish to discuss any part of this email with me, please call me on......
Dear Ms Clark,
I refer to your many comments in the media in respect of repeal of S59 about people hitting their children with riding crops and getting off.
I am the mother who disciplined her son with the riding crop. This was controlled discipline, not an angry assault. My son had just swung a baseball bat at his stepfathers head. He could have killed my husband.
After the discipline we had a well behaved, loving and compliant boy. A riding crop is designed to give a stinging sensation but is not injurious. There were no marks left on my son at all.
I may have been acquitted, but I certainly have not "got off". Even though I was acquitted CYF seized custody of my son, tore our family apart and nearly three years later I am still fighting to have him returned as CYF do not agree with the fact I physically disciplined, even though all forms of non physical discipline had not worked with this child and this was the only thing that did.
My almost 15 year old son is desperate to be at home where he feels loved and secure.
I am a responsible Mum who dearly loves her children. My sons behaviour was unacceptable. I corrected it. Repeal of S59 removes a parents ability to correct a child. Many politicans have lied about our case in order to bolster their agendas.
I am fed up with people who were not party to the facts of our case using it as a reason to make a very bad law change.
We have been through hell at the hands of CYF.
My son was placed on Risperdal whilst in CYF care to modify his behaviour. This has been banned in the states for use on children because of the life threatenning side effects. The side effects of Risperdal and the psychological damage to him by being removed from a family who love him, were much worse than the thirty second sting to his bottom.
I am still fighting for my son to be returned to my custody. The hell we have been through at the hands of CYF is a worse punishment than any the court could have issued if I had been found guilty.
Please do not for one moment think I got off. CYF have seen that I did not.
I ask that you reconsider your stance on repeal of S59.
Your constituents do not support your stance according to online polls.
If you support repeal you are supporting the destruction of many more families through state intervention as the police will involve CYF (as they do already) when investigating complaints. Even if the complaints are unfounded CYF will still hold children from their parents. I know this as I am a support worker for PANIC (parents against negative intervention of CYF) and have seen many cases like this.
Ms Clark you are not a Mum, so you can only speculate what hell it is for a parent to have her child taken away. This punishment is worse than any that could be inflicted on a parent, short of a child dying.
I might have been acquitted but have been punished as if guilty.
Please do not quote our case again, unless you are properly representing the facts. Tell the public how the state have punished me even though I was found NOT GUILTY.
If you wish to discuss any part of this email with me, please call me on......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
