Smack in the middle of hysteria
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/smack-in-the-middle-of-hysteria/2008/01/23/1201024992191.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
Miranda Devine
January 24, 2008
Illustration: Ed Aragon
At the gym one day during the holidays a mother was struggling with a shrieking toddler. The child had worked himself into hysteria and the sounds of his distress gave new meaning to “piercing” for those of us caught in the maelstrom. In the shower at first I thought I was hearing a hurricane ripping off a steel roof. Apart from prompting a flash of admiration for such energy and stamina from so small a set of lungs, the sound was deeply disturbing.
It continued for five or 10 minutes. All over the gym, from the pool to the women’s changing room, concerned gym-goers tiptoed towards the source of the sound to determine the cause of distress, retreating in embarrassment when they saw the mother, sitting passively in the face of such fury.
She seemed calm, if hunkered down, not remonstrating with the child, in fact scarcely acknowledging his drama, just unemotionally absorbing the noise at close quarters. Perhaps she was deaf.
On top of the incivility of subjecting others to the noise in a not particularly child-friendly establishment, her zen-like refusal to even try to dim the din was annoying.
Everyone else was powerless to control the volume and was waiting for her to do her job, or at least to remove the child to a place where his noise would not be amplified by porcelain-tiled walls.
What was her plan? Was she so exhausted by a difficult child that she could only cope by remaining silent? Or was she merely exercising a modern form of permissive parenting?
It was obviously not what the child wanted - he needed a reaction to all his effort, though after a while he was beyond reason. It can’t have been what the mother wanted, and it sure wasn’t what anyone else in the gym wanted.
People wanted to reach out and help the wretched woman and her poor child, but were at a loss.
How do you tell a women her child needs a good smack?
Remembering the bossy older women who used to exasperate my friends and me when our children were younger by offering unsolicited snarky advice about our tots’ perceived public misbehaviour, I hesitate before casting judgment on other mothers. We even started a joke support group, “Mothers Against Meanies” (MAM) to get the nosey-parkers to back off.
But, seriously, what happened to discipline? Little in the history of parenting has ever proven as effective as a sharp rebuke or, dare I say it, a swift smack on the bottom that acts as an instant “reboot” of a naughty child.
Some people will never agree with corporal punishment. But that doesn’t mean they can’t or shouldn’t control their kids; it’s just more complicated. For their own sake as much as for the children, not to mention the rest of society, they should at least try.
In the ABC-TV program The Madness of Modern Families, on Tuesday night, a British father described meal-times in his child-led household: “There’s been times when we’ve cooked a healthy meal and plonked it down in front of the children and then seen them eat nothing and worry they’re going to wake up in the night, and think it’d be easier to cook them another meal now.”
That’s not good parenting. It’s a recipe for monsters.
This reluctance by well-meaning modern parents to enforce fair, firm, quickly administered discipline is creating havoc with the generation into which infamous Melbourne party planner Corey Delaney (aka Worthington) was born.
The 16-year-old with the pierced nipple and trademark yellow sunglasses achieved international notoriety when he threw an out-of-control party while his parents were away, attracting 500 teenagers and the police riot squad.
He doesn’t seem a bad kid, and was at least trying to sweep up the mess the next day when TV cameras descended. His refusal to be intimidated by A Current Affair’s school-marmish interviewer was commendable. It’s his ineffectual parents, Jo and Steve Delaney, who are the problem, with their posturing TV interviews, “open letter” to newspapers and utter inability to command their son’s respect.
“He’s devastated,” Jo Delaney told one program while her son was on a rival channel boasting about “the best party ever”.
Public opinion on the internet advocates a firmer approach. The website www.slapcorey.com, has an image of the spotty, barechested teen, and a hand you can click to administer the punishment. By yesterday afternoon almost 650,000 people had indulged.
The Delaneys seem typical of a subset of laissez-faire baby-boomer parents who haven’t learned to say “No”.
Data from a new NSW Government parent helpline shows a crisis in parental confidence, with 20 per cent of calls from parents tearing out their hair about how to discipline their unruly offspring. And a study last year from the Vanderbilt Medical Centre in Tennessee found a third of parents believe their discipline methods are “never” or only “sometimes effective”.
Perhaps working parents try to outsource discipline and training of their children to nannies and other carers in the mistaken hope that family time will be calm. Perhaps step-parents are reluctant to mete out discipline, concerned the child will not recognise their authority.
Meanwhile the anti-smacking lobby is flexing its muscles, with the Australian Childhood Foundation pushing for a national law, following New Zealand, to prevent parents using corporal punishment. The Federal Government last year even gave them $2.5 million to fund a campaign warning parents not to smack.
The idea is that banning smacking in the home reduces violence in society. But common sense and the facts say the opposite, that lax parenting leads to more aggressive children.
The Norwegian bullying expert and psychology professor Dan Olweus has shown that “overly permissive parenting” actually creates bullies. No one wants to go back to an era in which children were seen and not heard, or belted when they were bad. There is plenty to admire about today’s parents, who are involved and interested in their children’s lives, and treat them with respect.
But there is a sensible middle ground, in which a firm “No”, even the odd smack, or raised voice, does not make you a bad parent. At the very least, if permissive parents want to give their misbehaving children free rein, could they please do it in the privacy of their own homes. Preferably with soundproofing.
Showing posts with label Press Release/Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press Release/Media. Show all posts
Friday, 25 January 2008
Media - Gisborne Herald
Anti-smacking law likely to come under more heavy fire this year
The Gisborne Herald
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/Default.aspx?s=3&s1=2&id=2924913200c34d588eb1b03c5ba41246Thursday, 24 January 2008
By Iain Gillies
Politicians look like being confronted, challenged and possibly embarrassed by the prospect of a referendum on the anti-smacking law later this year, almost certainly held in tandem with the next election.
Opponents of the controversial legislation initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford are now close to the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a citizen’s initiated referenda.
Almost 5000 signatures were obtained last weekend, including 1000 at the World Cup of Motorsport event at Taupo, 720 at a “blues, brews and barbecues” event in Hastings and other tallies from A&P Shows.
The current total of almost 268,000 represents a gain of 43,000 in the past two months, suggesting no diminution of public feeling on the issue.
Principal organiser Larry Baldock told The Gisborne Herald: “We’ve got to keep it moving, but we’re pretty confident we’ll be able to see this through to a referendum.”
Two petitions are being canvassed with a deadline of February 28 to obtain the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered electors and present them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The first — “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? — is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.
The second, in Mr Baldock’s name, is “Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?”
As a former United Future MP Mr Baldock has been the public face of the campaign since the petitions began circulating a year ago, with strong support from volunteers, organised groups and churches.
The terms for organising and conducting Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (CIR) are defined by legislation enacted by the Bolger administration in 1993, since when only two petitions have reached the point of forcing a plebiscite.
Interesting stuff . . . but even a referendum result is not binding on the Government.
The Gisborne Herald
http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/Default.aspx?s=3&s1=2&id=2924913200c34d588eb1b03c5ba41246Thursday, 24 January 2008
By Iain Gillies
Politicians look like being confronted, challenged and possibly embarrassed by the prospect of a referendum on the anti-smacking law later this year, almost certainly held in tandem with the next election.
Opponents of the controversial legislation initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford are now close to the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a citizen’s initiated referenda.
Almost 5000 signatures were obtained last weekend, including 1000 at the World Cup of Motorsport event at Taupo, 720 at a “blues, brews and barbecues” event in Hastings and other tallies from A&P Shows.
The current total of almost 268,000 represents a gain of 43,000 in the past two months, suggesting no diminution of public feeling on the issue.
Principal organiser Larry Baldock told The Gisborne Herald: “We’ve got to keep it moving, but we’re pretty confident we’ll be able to see this through to a referendum.”
Two petitions are being canvassed with a deadline of February 28 to obtain the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered electors and present them to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The first — “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? — is in the name of Aucklander Sheryl Savill, a mother-of-two who works with Focus on the Family and whose husband is a policeman.
The second, in Mr Baldock’s name, is “Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?”
As a former United Future MP Mr Baldock has been the public face of the campaign since the petitions began circulating a year ago, with strong support from volunteers, organised groups and churches.
The terms for organising and conducting Citizen’s Initiated Referenda (CIR) are defined by legislation enacted by the Bolger administration in 1993, since when only two petitions have reached the point of forcing a plebiscite.
Interesting stuff . . . but even a referendum result is not binding on the Government.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Media-Parent smacking ban is ruled out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7194015.stm
Parent smacking ban is ruled out
Wales will not have the power to ban parents from smacking their children, the assembly government has been told.
The UK government said new law-making powers for the assembly government to protect vulnerable children would not extend to a complete smacking ban.
It said this would impinge on the criminal justice system, which is not devolved to Wales.
The assembly government said it still had the right to ban smacking in childrens' homes or by carers.
This comes within the boundaries of 'social welfare', which the assembly government has control over.
The Labour-Plaid coalition had asked for the right to legislate - known as a Legislative Competence Order (LCO) - on vulnerable children.
But Welsh Secretary State Peter Hain has written to First Minister Rhodri Morgan to tell him the assembly government will not be able to introduce a blanket smacking ban, based on legal advice from the attorney-general.
Some children's charities had supported the prospect, saying a ban would clarify a confusing issue for parents.
Deputy Health Minister Gwenda Thomas also told a committee of AMs that she was in favour of Wales having its own law.
But Family and Youth Concern, which researches the effects of family breakdown, said it was wrong to pass laws on how parents should bring up children.
Under the 2004 Children's Act, which came into force in January 2005, mild smacking is allowed but any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can result in legal action.
The assembly government said: "We have only just received correspondence from the secretary of state on this issue, and will want to consider carefully all of the points raised."
Parent smacking ban is ruled out
Wales will not have the power to ban parents from smacking their children, the assembly government has been told.
The UK government said new law-making powers for the assembly government to protect vulnerable children would not extend to a complete smacking ban.
It said this would impinge on the criminal justice system, which is not devolved to Wales.
The assembly government said it still had the right to ban smacking in childrens' homes or by carers.
This comes within the boundaries of 'social welfare', which the assembly government has control over.
The Labour-Plaid coalition had asked for the right to legislate - known as a Legislative Competence Order (LCO) - on vulnerable children.
But Welsh Secretary State Peter Hain has written to First Minister Rhodri Morgan to tell him the assembly government will not be able to introduce a blanket smacking ban, based on legal advice from the attorney-general.
Some children's charities had supported the prospect, saying a ban would clarify a confusing issue for parents.
Deputy Health Minister Gwenda Thomas also told a committee of AMs that she was in favour of Wales having its own law.
But Family and Youth Concern, which researches the effects of family breakdown, said it was wrong to pass laws on how parents should bring up children.
Under the 2004 Children's Act, which came into force in January 2005, mild smacking is allowed but any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can result in legal action.
The assembly government said: "We have only just received correspondence from the secretary of state on this issue, and will want to consider carefully all of the points raised."
Monday, 21 January 2008
Media- Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10487849
Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out
By Simon Collins
A South Auckland foster care group says a quarter of its foster parents have quit because of the "anti-smacking" law passed last year.
South Auckland Caregivers Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed caregivers to use reasonable force to "correct" children, had made a chronic shortage worse.
"A quarter of our members have left because of section 59. I could rattle off about 10 in South Auckland. I know of many, many caregivers who have been longstanding caregivers but won't do caregiving any more. It's too dangerous.
"These kids are really hard. They just don't care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?"
Child, Youth and Family Services has faced mounting problems finding foster parents in recent years, as the number of children in care has grown by 18 per cent in the past five years to 5049, while the number of single-income families with one parent available at home for caregiving has shrunk.
However, other foster care groups said the smacking law was not a factor for their members.
Both Carolyn Hill, who chairs the national Family and Foster Care Federation, and Foster Care Auckland chairman Byron Perkins said they had not heard of any caregiver leaving because of the law change.
"People are leaving because they are dissatisfied with CYFS," Mr Perkins said. "It comes down to the whole area of professionalism and payments because both couples have to go to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage."
A CYFS survey published in November found that 71 per cent of its mainly-female primary caregivers now work outside the home - 20 per cent fulltime and 51 per cent part-time. Although 80 per cent of its mainly-male secondary caregivers have paid work, most are low-paid. Only 46 per cent earn more than $35,000 a year.
Three-quarters said the foster care allowance of $124 to $174 a week per child depending on the child's age did not cover all their costs such as transporting the children to school and other activities.
Grandparents Raising Grandchildren convener Di Vivian said many grandparents were "frightened" by the new law, but she did not know of any who had given up caring for their grandchildren because of it.
A CYFS spokeswoman said the repeal of section 59 made no difference to the service's long-standing policy against any "physical discipline".
Also look at:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/a_quarter_of_south_auckland_foster_parents_quit.html
and
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-smacking-law-damaging-foster-care.html
Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out
By Simon Collins
A South Auckland foster care group says a quarter of its foster parents have quit because of the "anti-smacking" law passed last year.
South Auckland Caregivers Association chairwoman Allysa Carberry said the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed caregivers to use reasonable force to "correct" children, had made a chronic shortage worse.
"A quarter of our members have left because of section 59. I could rattle off about 10 in South Auckland. I know of many, many caregivers who have been longstanding caregivers but won't do caregiving any more. It's too dangerous.
"These kids are really hard. They just don't care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?"
Child, Youth and Family Services has faced mounting problems finding foster parents in recent years, as the number of children in care has grown by 18 per cent in the past five years to 5049, while the number of single-income families with one parent available at home for caregiving has shrunk.
However, other foster care groups said the smacking law was not a factor for their members.
Both Carolyn Hill, who chairs the national Family and Foster Care Federation, and Foster Care Auckland chairman Byron Perkins said they had not heard of any caregiver leaving because of the law change.
"People are leaving because they are dissatisfied with CYFS," Mr Perkins said. "It comes down to the whole area of professionalism and payments because both couples have to go to work to earn the money to pay the mortgage."
A CYFS survey published in November found that 71 per cent of its mainly-female primary caregivers now work outside the home - 20 per cent fulltime and 51 per cent part-time. Although 80 per cent of its mainly-male secondary caregivers have paid work, most are low-paid. Only 46 per cent earn more than $35,000 a year.
Three-quarters said the foster care allowance of $124 to $174 a week per child depending on the child's age did not cover all their costs such as transporting the children to school and other activities.
Grandparents Raising Grandchildren convener Di Vivian said many grandparents were "frightened" by the new law, but she did not know of any who had given up caring for their grandchildren because of it.
A CYFS spokeswoman said the repeal of section 59 made no difference to the service's long-standing policy against any "physical discipline".
Also look at:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/a_quarter_of_south_auckland_foster_parents_quit.html
and
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-smacking-law-damaging-foster-care.html
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Dominion Post Editorial
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4359329a26494.html
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation, The Dominion Post writes.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Read Lindsay Mitchell's comments on this editorial here:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-about-pioneering-traditions.html
Editorial: Labour's lesson in innovation
The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008
When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason "flicked" his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don't ride your bike near the road when you're told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government's anti-smacking legislation in operation, The Dominion Post writes.
A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said. "It was pretty bizarre."
In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.
If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.
But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.
But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.
Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason's story and those of witnesses.
When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.
Technically they are correct in Mr Mason's case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.
Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.
But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.
When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.
All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand's tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.
But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.
Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.
Read Lindsay Mitchell's comments on this editorial here:
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-about-pioneering-traditions.html
Where is the support for good Parents?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0801/S00090.htm
Press Release: The Family Party
http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz
Where is the support for good Parents raising their children?
Most good parents would confirm that bringing up children in 2008 brings many challenges.
“A comment by the Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro commending the public for intervening in a father’s discipline of his child is a worrying trend that concerns many good parents,” said the deputy leader of The Family Party, Paul Adams.
“I agree all the facts are not known, however let’s put our self in the fathers shoes for a moment.” Adams continued.
“Here is a father taking time out to take his two young sons on a biking outing, apparently a regular occurrence. This surely is to be commended. The younger son (2 years) has an accident beside the roadway and is hurt. The second son (3 years) does not understand the seriousness of the situation and the father being responsible for both of his sons, handles the situation in a manner he felt was appropriate for the safety of both boys.”
Adams says,” The Children’s Commissioner is NOT the authority on child raising – parents are. These parents need all the help that they can get. The emerging trend that the state knows best for all children is a dangerous fallacy.”
The Family Party has been actively door knocking in the Mangere electorate. A major concern is this anti-smacking law, which was opposed by many New Zealanders but forced through by the current Government.
“There is genuine fear and uncertainty amongst parents who have used traditional methods of corrective discipline such as smacking. Based on what I’ve seen, these are decent, law-abiding parents who know the difference between a smack and abuse. Nevertheless, there is a sense of disempowerment because parents fear being criminalised if they hold on to their traditional values and methods of discipline.
“The reality is we either encourage parents to discipline their children while they are young, or sadly, as in the case of too many New Zealanders the state will discipline them when they are older. Personally I prefer loving parental correction, rather than this over the top anti parent legislation we currently have to deal with.”
Press Release: The Family Party
http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz
Where is the support for good Parents raising their children?
Most good parents would confirm that bringing up children in 2008 brings many challenges.
“A comment by the Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro commending the public for intervening in a father’s discipline of his child is a worrying trend that concerns many good parents,” said the deputy leader of The Family Party, Paul Adams.
“I agree all the facts are not known, however let’s put our self in the fathers shoes for a moment.” Adams continued.
“Here is a father taking time out to take his two young sons on a biking outing, apparently a regular occurrence. This surely is to be commended. The younger son (2 years) has an accident beside the roadway and is hurt. The second son (3 years) does not understand the seriousness of the situation and the father being responsible for both of his sons, handles the situation in a manner he felt was appropriate for the safety of both boys.”
Adams says,” The Children’s Commissioner is NOT the authority on child raising – parents are. These parents need all the help that they can get. The emerging trend that the state knows best for all children is a dangerous fallacy.”
The Family Party has been actively door knocking in the Mangere electorate. A major concern is this anti-smacking law, which was opposed by many New Zealanders but forced through by the current Government.
“There is genuine fear and uncertainty amongst parents who have used traditional methods of corrective discipline such as smacking. Based on what I’ve seen, these are decent, law-abiding parents who know the difference between a smack and abuse. Nevertheless, there is a sense of disempowerment because parents fear being criminalised if they hold on to their traditional values and methods of discipline.
“The reality is we either encourage parents to discipline their children while they are young, or sadly, as in the case of too many New Zealanders the state will discipline them when they are older. Personally I prefer loving parental correction, rather than this over the top anti parent legislation we currently have to deal with.”
Monday, 14 January 2008
Media - Father warned
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4354765a10.html
Father warned for disciplining boy, 3
By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008
A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son's ear in public as a reprimand.
Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.
The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.
"Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn't realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness," Mason said.
"So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one," Mason said.
A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said.
"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."
Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.
"When I say 'stop' to the kids they have got to stop," he said. "I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.
"They didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."
In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.
"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater.
"There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."
He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.
He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.
Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.
"It says every parent is justified in using force if it's reasonable in the circumstances," he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was "inconsequential" and not in the public interest to prosecute.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.
"It just seems totally over the top," he said. "That's the problem with this law, it's lost the common-sense element. It's a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused."
A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be "inconsequential" and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.
Father warned for disciplining boy, 3
By PHIL HAMILTON - The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008
A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son's ear in public as a reprimand.
Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.
The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.
"Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn't realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness," Mason said.
"So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one," Mason said.
A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.
"They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me," he said.
"It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth."
Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.
"When I say 'stop' to the kids they have got to stop," he said. "I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.
"They didn't know and I said to them, 'Well, you've just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right'."
In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.
"It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I'm a child beater.
"There's an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can't flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection."
He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.
He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.
Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.
"It says every parent is justified in using force if it's reasonable in the circumstances," he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was "inconsequential" and not in the public interest to prosecute.
Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.
"It just seems totally over the top," he said. "That's the problem with this law, it's lost the common-sense element. It's a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused."
A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be "inconsequential" and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
NEW ZEALAND BANS SPANKING
http://groups.google.com/group/Bible-Prophecy-News/browse_thread/thread/8af861abe72cb932/48bb426efea41893?hl=en&q=%22Section+59%22#48bb426efea41893
NEW ZEALAND BANS SPANKING
This year three more countries banned spanking of children. In May New Zealand became the first English-speaking country to ban the practice. Over the past two months Uruguay and Venezuela have followed suit. New Zealand’s Crimes Amendment Act of 2007 abrogates section 59 of the Crimes Act of 1961 which allowed the “use of force” for correction of children. Activists such as Save the Children have fought to ban corporal punishment for decades. There are now 22 nations that ban spanking by law. Sweden was the first in 1979. Other nations are Austria, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, the Netherlands, and Ukraine. Humanists are fighting throughout the world to ban this practice, and the United Nations is pushing this agenda. It is a direct attack on God’s Word which exhorts parents, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15).
NEW ZEALAND BANS SPANKING
This year three more countries banned spanking of children. In May New Zealand became the first English-speaking country to ban the practice. Over the past two months Uruguay and Venezuela have followed suit. New Zealand’s Crimes Amendment Act of 2007 abrogates section 59 of the Crimes Act of 1961 which allowed the “use of force” for correction of children. Activists such as Save the Children have fought to ban corporal punishment for decades. There are now 22 nations that ban spanking by law. Sweden was the first in 1979. Other nations are Austria, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, the Netherlands, and Ukraine. Humanists are fighting throughout the world to ban this practice, and the United Nations is pushing this agenda. It is a direct attack on God’s Word which exhorts parents, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15).
Saturday, 5 January 2008
Media - Bradford on the defence again over smacking law
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=130199
Bradford on the defence again over smacking law
5/01/2008 5:56:02
Green MP Sue Bradford believes her anti-smacking legislation will eventually change what she describes as a culture of violence.
Her comments follow the death of a two-month-old who was admitted to hospital with a skull fracture, and bruising to her brain. Police are treating it as a homicide.
Sue Bradford says it is wrong for people to say her law is not working, because no amount of legislation can stop murders.
Bradford on the defence again over smacking law
5/01/2008 5:56:02
Green MP Sue Bradford believes her anti-smacking legislation will eventually change what she describes as a culture of violence.
Her comments follow the death of a two-month-old who was admitted to hospital with a skull fracture, and bruising to her brain. Police are treating it as a homicide.
Sue Bradford says it is wrong for people to say her law is not working, because no amount of legislation can stop murders.
Media - Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1533876
Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
Jan 4, 2008 4:02 PM
An anti-smacking campaigner has clashed with a woman who supports the legislation south of Auckland on Friday.
The teenager was collecting signatures for a petition against the law outside a Pukehohe mall, when she was assaulted by a woman in favour of it.
Her father Craig Hill says she is a bit shaken up by the incident.
Hill says a local mall security guard managed to wrestle the woman off his daughter.
A complaint has been made to police.
Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
Jan 4, 2008 4:02 PM
An anti-smacking campaigner has clashed with a woman who supports the legislation south of Auckland on Friday.
The teenager was collecting signatures for a petition against the law outside a Pukehohe mall, when she was assaulted by a woman in favour of it.
Her father Craig Hill says she is a bit shaken up by the incident.
Hill says a local mall security guard managed to wrestle the woman off his daughter.
A complaint has been made to police.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Major Milestone passed!
Major Milestone passed!
Larry Baldock
Petition Organiser
Co Leader, Future NZ
Contact Larry Baldock: 021 864 833 or (07) 543 0600
A quarter of a million signatures means that New Zealander’s will finally get to have their say on the smacking debate!!
The Citizens Initiated Referendum petition to ask the question:
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ” has now passed the 250,000 mark.
It is now well on its way to the approx 300,000 signatures required by March to force a referendum at next election.
This is a message to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and all those who thought they could ignore good decent Mum’s and Dad’s in this country who are trying to do their best with the most important job in the world. No Helen, it’s not being Prime Minister, it is raising good kids.
We are going to have a referendum at the next election so that the 84% of New Zealander’s who said they opposed this legislation can vent their frustration at being ignored. Sue Bradford has accused us of lying and scaremongering, claiming that the police report on the first three months since her bill became law shows that nothing has changed.
We refute that. While we can agree that her bill has done nothing to reduce child abuse as we predicted, there has in fact been a change already in police procedure.
The record shows that at least 15 good parents were subjected to the indignity and embarrassment of having the police turn up at their homes with warnings and threats of prosecution if they did not stop breaking the new Bradford law.
The police have never been put in this insidious position before.
They should have been issuing encouragement and congratulations to those parents who love their kids enough to do the hard yards by occasionally using a smack to teach their children respect for authority, and the difference between right and wrong.
We know that those 15 parents are only the first of many who will become the objects of Helen and Sue’s plans to alter our culture and way of life.
When they accuse us of lying and spreading misinformation their fingers should be pointed at themselves. Helen Clark said on a Radio interview prior to the last election that she did not want to ban smacking and then went on to say, “that many don’t want to see stressed and harassed parents called in by the police because they smack a child.”
Well Prime Minister that is exactly what is now happening across this country.
Repeatedly Sue Bradford and supporters said the law had to be changed so that those who hit and beat their children could be prosecuted. Now she openly admits that her bill has failed already. As recently as Dec 21 on National Radio she said “The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
So what was her bill intended to do? We suspect that the real intention was to undermine the authority of parents in the home.
The referendum is coming which will allow every New Zealander to have their say. If the PM, Sue Bradford and all the MP’s who supported it had any respect for democracy they would have called for the referendum themselves.
Larry Baldock
Petition Organiser
Co Leader, Future NZ
Contact Larry Baldock: 021 864 833 or (07) 543 0600
A quarter of a million signatures means that New Zealander’s will finally get to have their say on the smacking debate!!
The Citizens Initiated Referendum petition to ask the question:
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ” has now passed the 250,000 mark.
It is now well on its way to the approx 300,000 signatures required by March to force a referendum at next election.
This is a message to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and all those who thought they could ignore good decent Mum’s and Dad’s in this country who are trying to do their best with the most important job in the world. No Helen, it’s not being Prime Minister, it is raising good kids.
We are going to have a referendum at the next election so that the 84% of New Zealander’s who said they opposed this legislation can vent their frustration at being ignored. Sue Bradford has accused us of lying and scaremongering, claiming that the police report on the first three months since her bill became law shows that nothing has changed.
We refute that. While we can agree that her bill has done nothing to reduce child abuse as we predicted, there has in fact been a change already in police procedure.
The record shows that at least 15 good parents were subjected to the indignity and embarrassment of having the police turn up at their homes with warnings and threats of prosecution if they did not stop breaking the new Bradford law.
The police have never been put in this insidious position before.
They should have been issuing encouragement and congratulations to those parents who love their kids enough to do the hard yards by occasionally using a smack to teach their children respect for authority, and the difference between right and wrong.
We know that those 15 parents are only the first of many who will become the objects of Helen and Sue’s plans to alter our culture and way of life.
When they accuse us of lying and spreading misinformation their fingers should be pointed at themselves. Helen Clark said on a Radio interview prior to the last election that she did not want to ban smacking and then went on to say, “that many don’t want to see stressed and harassed parents called in by the police because they smack a child.”
Well Prime Minister that is exactly what is now happening across this country.
Repeatedly Sue Bradford and supporters said the law had to be changed so that those who hit and beat their children could be prosecuted. Now she openly admits that her bill has failed already. As recently as Dec 21 on National Radio she said “The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
So what was her bill intended to do? We suspect that the real intention was to undermine the authority of parents in the home.
The referendum is coming which will allow every New Zealander to have their say. If the PM, Sue Bradford and all the MP’s who supported it had any respect for democracy they would have called for the referendum themselves.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Media - stuff
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4342058a26430.html
Top 10 political themes for 2007
By IAN LLEWELLYN - NZPA | Tuesday, 01 January 2008
2007 was been a busy year for those interested in the world of politics, full of high, lows and the plain absurd.
During the year the NZPA press gallery wrote more than 5600 items. Here is a list of its top 10 biggest political stories or themes of the year.
Three – It's the economy, stupid:
The biggest three political stories in NZPA's unscientific survey were all so close it might as well have been a three-way dead heat. The resilient state of the economy, unemployment staggeringly low, interest rates causing pain, monetary policy seemingly ineffective and the dollar being too high for many, were never far from the front pages. The political problem for Finance Minister Michael Cullen is that it has been so long since an even mild recession, that most people have forgotten the pain it can cause. The economy and the debate over tax cuts will be a dominant feature of the political landscape in 2008, with Dr Cullen trying to shrug off his scrooge label.
Two – Labour takes a smacking:
The sleeper story of 2006 woke up with a vengeance in 2007 when Green MP Sue Bradford's bill removing the defence of reasonable force when assaulting a child re-emerged on the parliamentary agenda. The debate morphed into a many-headed row over child discipline and abuse, as well as the role of the state in family life. Labour forced its MPs to vote en masse for the bill and the point of principle caused much pain for the party. Many National MPs were horrified when their leader, John Key, did a last minute deal with Miss Clark to back the bill if it was watered down. Many in National felt it would have been better to keep kicking when Labour was down but most of those now link the move to National's rise and Labour's fall.
One – Electoral Law:
After brooding about the 2005 election for a year, Labour and its allies thrust the Electoral Finance Bill on the opposition. Labour's attempt to stamp out big-spending election campaigns came back to bite it as, once again, the debate morphed into a freedom of speech issue. It did not help that the bill was terribly written, confusing, contradictory and plain draconian in places. Labour is hoping that once voters realise it does not affect 99 per cent of people, the fuss will die; how many voters want to spend money persuading others how to vote? However Labour's failure to get wider support and undergo a much-needed overhaul of the dated Electoral Act on a bi-partisan basis may come back to haunt it in 2008.
Top 10 political themes for 2007
By IAN LLEWELLYN - NZPA | Tuesday, 01 January 2008
2007 was been a busy year for those interested in the world of politics, full of high, lows and the plain absurd.
During the year the NZPA press gallery wrote more than 5600 items. Here is a list of its top 10 biggest political stories or themes of the year.
Three – It's the economy, stupid:
The biggest three political stories in NZPA's unscientific survey were all so close it might as well have been a three-way dead heat. The resilient state of the economy, unemployment staggeringly low, interest rates causing pain, monetary policy seemingly ineffective and the dollar being too high for many, were never far from the front pages. The political problem for Finance Minister Michael Cullen is that it has been so long since an even mild recession, that most people have forgotten the pain it can cause. The economy and the debate over tax cuts will be a dominant feature of the political landscape in 2008, with Dr Cullen trying to shrug off his scrooge label.
Two – Labour takes a smacking:
The sleeper story of 2006 woke up with a vengeance in 2007 when Green MP Sue Bradford's bill removing the defence of reasonable force when assaulting a child re-emerged on the parliamentary agenda. The debate morphed into a many-headed row over child discipline and abuse, as well as the role of the state in family life. Labour forced its MPs to vote en masse for the bill and the point of principle caused much pain for the party. Many National MPs were horrified when their leader, John Key, did a last minute deal with Miss Clark to back the bill if it was watered down. Many in National felt it would have been better to keep kicking when Labour was down but most of those now link the move to National's rise and Labour's fall.
One – Electoral Law:
After brooding about the 2005 election for a year, Labour and its allies thrust the Electoral Finance Bill on the opposition. Labour's attempt to stamp out big-spending election campaigns came back to bite it as, once again, the debate morphed into a freedom of speech issue. It did not help that the bill was terribly written, confusing, contradictory and plain draconian in places. Labour is hoping that once voters realise it does not affect 99 per cent of people, the fuss will die; how many voters want to spend money persuading others how to vote? However Labour's failure to get wider support and undergo a much-needed overhaul of the dated Electoral Act on a bi-partisan basis may come back to haunt it in 2008.
Monday, 31 December 2007
Media - Family First
MEDIA RELEASE
30 December 2007
No.1 Issue for 2008 - Government Respect For Role of Parents
Family First NZ has identified government respect for parents as the number 1 issue for 2008.
“Politicians, with the support of UN Conventions, the Children’s Commissioner and Youth Law Project to name a few, have sought to increase children’s rights without considering the vital role of parents,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Parents understandably feel undervalued, under-resourced and under suspicion.”
Recent examples include:
* a teenager who attempted to use the Care of Children Act to ‘divorce’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules
* the Privacy Act being quoted by the Police as justification for hiding the whereabouts of a 16 year old runaway daughter from her concerned parents
* CYF and Police failing to prosecute a 21 year old who admitted having sex with a girl under the age of 12
* the anti-smacking law which sent a clear message to parents that the State and its agencies know better how to raise children even if parents are reasonably and responsibly correcting their children. (Ironically Sue Bradford stated in an interview last week that the law was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse and violence)
* continued lack of an independent CYF Complaints Authority despite repeated calls for one and an increasing number of families being adversely impacted by the actions and decisions of social workers (acknowledged by a recently released book by senior social workers) without an avenue of appeal for the parents
* children as young as five have been told off for bringing yoghurt, muesli bars, salad rolls and juice to school as over-zealous teachers try to enforce healthy eating rules - despite parents pleading to be allowed to give their children the occasional treat
* parents concerned about the graphic nature of information regarding the meningococcal B campaign provided to children at school, mostly without consent (study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal)
* a suggestion by National’s education spokeswoman Katherine Rich that the government should penalise parents who take their children out of school for a family holiday, yet failing to identify or target dysfunctional families where ongoing truancy is condoned or ignored by the parents
* proposal by the Children’s Commissioner to screen every child’s home, threatening to refer good parents who resist this intrusion, to social welfare agencies, while failing to target the real abusers and provide the necessary services for young and new parents
* young girls (some well under the age of sexual consent) being sneaked off by schools to get contraceptives or an abortion without any parental knowledge or consent yet these same kids have to get parental permission to go on a school trip to the zoo
Mr McCoskrie says “On one hand, a parent is responsible for the actions of their child in the community and school, and meeting their emotional, financial and physical needs, yet at the same time their role is being undermined, and weakened by laws and policies which bypass the input of parents and treat them like a sub-contractor.”
“The huge irony is that the more the state undermines the role and authority of parents, the less responsibility parents will feel they should take for their children,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“If the government wants parents to be responsible parents, they must firstly respect their role.”
Family First will continue to monitor policies from all the political parties in Election 2008 and test whether they support and strengthen the role of parents, or create a ‘rights’ culture which pits children (and the State) against their parents.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
30 December 2007
No.1 Issue for 2008 - Government Respect For Role of Parents
Family First NZ has identified government respect for parents as the number 1 issue for 2008.
“Politicians, with the support of UN Conventions, the Children’s Commissioner and Youth Law Project to name a few, have sought to increase children’s rights without considering the vital role of parents,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Parents understandably feel undervalued, under-resourced and under suspicion.”
Recent examples include:
* a teenager who attempted to use the Care of Children Act to ‘divorce’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules
* the Privacy Act being quoted by the Police as justification for hiding the whereabouts of a 16 year old runaway daughter from her concerned parents
* CYF and Police failing to prosecute a 21 year old who admitted having sex with a girl under the age of 12
* the anti-smacking law which sent a clear message to parents that the State and its agencies know better how to raise children even if parents are reasonably and responsibly correcting their children. (Ironically Sue Bradford stated in an interview last week that the law was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse and violence)
* continued lack of an independent CYF Complaints Authority despite repeated calls for one and an increasing number of families being adversely impacted by the actions and decisions of social workers (acknowledged by a recently released book by senior social workers) without an avenue of appeal for the parents
* children as young as five have been told off for bringing yoghurt, muesli bars, salad rolls and juice to school as over-zealous teachers try to enforce healthy eating rules - despite parents pleading to be allowed to give their children the occasional treat
* parents concerned about the graphic nature of information regarding the meningococcal B campaign provided to children at school, mostly without consent (study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal)
* a suggestion by National’s education spokeswoman Katherine Rich that the government should penalise parents who take their children out of school for a family holiday, yet failing to identify or target dysfunctional families where ongoing truancy is condoned or ignored by the parents
* proposal by the Children’s Commissioner to screen every child’s home, threatening to refer good parents who resist this intrusion, to social welfare agencies, while failing to target the real abusers and provide the necessary services for young and new parents
* young girls (some well under the age of sexual consent) being sneaked off by schools to get contraceptives or an abortion without any parental knowledge or consent yet these same kids have to get parental permission to go on a school trip to the zoo
Mr McCoskrie says “On one hand, a parent is responsible for the actions of their child in the community and school, and meeting their emotional, financial and physical needs, yet at the same time their role is being undermined, and weakened by laws and policies which bypass the input of parents and treat them like a sub-contractor.”
“The huge irony is that the more the state undermines the role and authority of parents, the less responsibility parents will feel they should take for their children,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“If the government wants parents to be responsible parents, they must firstly respect their role.”
Family First will continue to monitor policies from all the political parties in Election 2008 and test whether they support and strengthen the role of parents, or create a ‘rights’ culture which pits children (and the State) against their parents.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
Saturday, 29 December 2007
Media - tvnz
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1523352
Smacking law political issue of 2007
Dec 27, 2007 7:56 AM
The smacking debate was politically the biggest issue of the year, with politicians pitted against parents who say they are sick of being told by the government how to run their lives.
The anti-smacking legislation was introduced by Greens MP Sue Bradford and she says what followed was a lesson in just how brutal politics can be.
For months, New Zealand screens were bombarded with news of the Anti-Smacking Bill, with some supporting the bill and seeing it as a means to help stop the rampant child abuse in New Zealand and many others seeing it as a means of the government controlling how parents bring up their children.
Those who were against the bill were more louder and showed their discontent by protesting up and down the country, but the protests were in vain as by May, MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking law became a reality in parliament by 113 votes to seven.
It was a hard won fight for the Green MP and for Labour, which removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who hit their kids.
National opposed the bill but agreed to a compromise, leading to one of the strangest moments at parliament with Helen Clark sharing the podium with her number one political rival John Key.
There were a lot of whacky moments during the Anti-Smacking Bill becoming law.
Death threats were issued to Bradford and there was also a smack free town, with Ngongotaha claiming to be the first in the country.
MP Gordon Copeland quit his party because it supported the bill, but then forgot to go to parliament for the final vote and was slammed for not understanding the bill after he claimed that the average parent in New Zealand would be subject to criminal charges for even a light smack.
But nothing of the sort has happened - not yet at least.
In fact Bradford says there have been just two prosecutions since the bill was passed and one other case where police investigated but went no further.
"The law appears to be working perfectly and in line with what we intended... there were gross exaggerations and ridiculous lies about what would happen as a consequence of my bill going through. Those fears, those lies have not come to fruition," says Bradford.
But her opponents disagree.
"I think the politicians were suckered into an ideology that it felt good. It seemed like the solution to our child abuse problems but our experience is that it's had no effect on child abuse rates and we've had five child abuse deaths since the passing of the bill... In fact while the bill was being passed Nia Glassie was being hung on a washing line," says Bob McCroskie from Family First NZ.
The debate continues to goes on and many are saying it could heat up once again as a petition is already doing the rounds, which could mean the issue comes up in a referendum when voters go to the polls next year.
Smacking law political issue of 2007
Dec 27, 2007 7:56 AM
The smacking debate was politically the biggest issue of the year, with politicians pitted against parents who say they are sick of being told by the government how to run their lives.
The anti-smacking legislation was introduced by Greens MP Sue Bradford and she says what followed was a lesson in just how brutal politics can be.
For months, New Zealand screens were bombarded with news of the Anti-Smacking Bill, with some supporting the bill and seeing it as a means to help stop the rampant child abuse in New Zealand and many others seeing it as a means of the government controlling how parents bring up their children.
Those who were against the bill were more louder and showed their discontent by protesting up and down the country, but the protests were in vain as by May, MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking law became a reality in parliament by 113 votes to seven.
It was a hard won fight for the Green MP and for Labour, which removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who hit their kids.
National opposed the bill but agreed to a compromise, leading to one of the strangest moments at parliament with Helen Clark sharing the podium with her number one political rival John Key.
There were a lot of whacky moments during the Anti-Smacking Bill becoming law.
Death threats were issued to Bradford and there was also a smack free town, with Ngongotaha claiming to be the first in the country.
MP Gordon Copeland quit his party because it supported the bill, but then forgot to go to parliament for the final vote and was slammed for not understanding the bill after he claimed that the average parent in New Zealand would be subject to criminal charges for even a light smack.
But nothing of the sort has happened - not yet at least.
In fact Bradford says there have been just two prosecutions since the bill was passed and one other case where police investigated but went no further.
"The law appears to be working perfectly and in line with what we intended... there were gross exaggerations and ridiculous lies about what would happen as a consequence of my bill going through. Those fears, those lies have not come to fruition," says Bradford.
But her opponents disagree.
"I think the politicians were suckered into an ideology that it felt good. It seemed like the solution to our child abuse problems but our experience is that it's had no effect on child abuse rates and we've had five child abuse deaths since the passing of the bill... In fact while the bill was being passed Nia Glassie was being hung on a washing line," says Bob McCroskie from Family First NZ.
The debate continues to goes on and many are saying it could heat up once again as a petition is already doing the rounds, which could mean the issue comes up in a referendum when voters go to the polls next year.
Monday, 24 December 2007
radionz -MP3
Here is an easier way to find the interview between Larry Baldock and Sue Bradford:
Smacking Bill Report
A three month snapshot reveals there has been no increase in the number of cases police have had to deal with.
File Size:2.1MB
Date: (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:42:00 +1300
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20071221-0742-Smacking_Bill_Report-048.mp3
Smacking Bill Report
A three month snapshot reveals there has been no increase in the number of cases police have had to deal with.
File Size:2.1MB
Date: (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:42:00 +1300
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20071221-0742-Smacking_Bill_Report-048.mp3
Friday, 21 December 2007
Media
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0712/S00302.htm
Smacking Review No Measure
Friday, 21 December 2007, 11:09 am
http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz
The Family Party says a review depicting low numbers of smacking related incidents over three months since the anti-smacking law came into affect is not necessarily a measure of the impact the controvercial law is having on New Zealand families.
The three-month review found police issued nine warnings to parents who have smacked their kids after attending 15 cases of reported smacking. The 15 cases were determined not to be in the public interest to prosecute and warnings were given out in nine cases. Two cases were referred to family violence coordinators, four were referred to Child, Youth and Family, three were referred to inter-agency case management meetings and one was referred to Family Works for family support.
Family Party leader Richard Lewis says while reported incidents don’t appear to be high, there is a genuine sense of concern amongst parents who fear unwarranted state intervention if they smack their children in circumstances that would have formerly been considered reasonable and acceptable.
“Based on this report, there are a number of families now experiencing different levels of state intervention because they have come to the attention of the police. What the report wont show is the general sense of disempowerment and vulnerability that many parents are feeling in their homes. What’s worse is that there is no longer a ‘last line of defence’ for responsible parents facing allegations of assault in the home. The irony is, section 59 would not have protected individuals who have used excessive force. The difference is police have become judge and jury, which is not fair on them and is not necessarily comforting for parents,” says Mr Lewis.
He says that those parents who had been warned would likely face prosecution if they came to the attention of the police again under similar circumstances. He also referred to a recent survey that revealed three-quarters of parents smacked; meaning the future risk of a parent being unfairly incriminated was high (Christchurch Health and Development Study).
“Despite the outcome of this review, the principle remains that the overwhelming majority of kiwi parents opposed the section 59 amendment but it was rammed through anyway, in a manner that has come to characterise this government. So any reports to justify their heavy-handed approach to New Zealand families are hardly going to be taken seriously,” he added.
ENDS
Smacking Review No Measure
Friday, 21 December 2007, 11:09 am
http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz
The Family Party says a review depicting low numbers of smacking related incidents over three months since the anti-smacking law came into affect is not necessarily a measure of the impact the controvercial law is having on New Zealand families.
The three-month review found police issued nine warnings to parents who have smacked their kids after attending 15 cases of reported smacking. The 15 cases were determined not to be in the public interest to prosecute and warnings were given out in nine cases. Two cases were referred to family violence coordinators, four were referred to Child, Youth and Family, three were referred to inter-agency case management meetings and one was referred to Family Works for family support.
Family Party leader Richard Lewis says while reported incidents don’t appear to be high, there is a genuine sense of concern amongst parents who fear unwarranted state intervention if they smack their children in circumstances that would have formerly been considered reasonable and acceptable.
“Based on this report, there are a number of families now experiencing different levels of state intervention because they have come to the attention of the police. What the report wont show is the general sense of disempowerment and vulnerability that many parents are feeling in their homes. What’s worse is that there is no longer a ‘last line of defence’ for responsible parents facing allegations of assault in the home. The irony is, section 59 would not have protected individuals who have used excessive force. The difference is police have become judge and jury, which is not fair on them and is not necessarily comforting for parents,” says Mr Lewis.
He says that those parents who had been warned would likely face prosecution if they came to the attention of the police again under similar circumstances. He also referred to a recent survey that revealed three-quarters of parents smacked; meaning the future risk of a parent being unfairly incriminated was high (Christchurch Health and Development Study).
“Despite the outcome of this review, the principle remains that the overwhelming majority of kiwi parents opposed the section 59 amendment but it was rammed through anyway, in a manner that has come to characterise this government. So any reports to justify their heavy-handed approach to New Zealand families are hardly going to be taken seriously,” he added.
ENDS
Media
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/21/2124812.htmSpain bans smacking
Posted 4 hours 38 minutes ago
The Spanish Congress has passed a bill that bans parents from smacking their children.
Spanish law had allowed parents to 'reasonably and moderately correct their children'.
But the Socialist government has voted to delete that clause in order to remove any ambiguity.
The conservative opposition party voted against the change on the grounds that it would leave parents powerless to discipline their children.
Of Europe's 46 member states, 16 have already banned smacking at school and in the home.
-Reuters
Posted 4 hours 38 minutes ago
The Spanish Congress has passed a bill that bans parents from smacking their children.
Spanish law had allowed parents to 'reasonably and moderately correct their children'.
But the Socialist government has voted to delete that clause in order to remove any ambiguity.
The conservative opposition party voted against the change on the grounds that it would leave parents powerless to discipline their children.
Of Europe's 46 member states, 16 have already banned smacking at school and in the home.
-Reuters
Media
MEDIA RELEASE
20 December 2007
Family First Rubbishes Police Review on Smacking Law
Family First NZ is labelling the review on the smacking law released today as inaccurate and misleading.
"The police report claims that, on average, one smacking complaint is being dealt with by the police each week nationwide," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "This is totally false and simply reflects the fact that many calls that police are attending are being deemed so inconsequential that the police attending are not even recording the information in the database."
The report says that "an absence of a notification on a Police file does not necessarily mean that no notification was made."
"Recent research from Christchurch School of Medicine shows that up to 80% of parents are continuing to smack their children without abusing them. And people who are collecting signatures for the Referendum against the anti-smacking law are regularly being told of parents being investigated by police. In one half hour period, one collector was told of three investigations alone, two of them on grandparents.
"If there is really only one complaint a week as claimed, we really need to be asking why the politicians spent so much time, energy and debate on a law that had so little need - or effect," says Mr McCoskrie.
"And meanwhile, child abuse continues with five child abuse deaths since the passing of the law including Nia Glassie, 16 month old Sachin Dhani, and ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa from Manurewa."
"The smacking law has failed to stem the tide of child abuse, but has targeted many good parents and grandparents with the trauma and fear of police investigation and CYF involvement.
Nine cases alone notified to Family First have been documented on their website: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html
Family First believes that the full weight of the anti-smacking law will not be felt until after the election – to avoid further political fallout. Currently, there are approximately 245,000 signatures on a petition demanding Referendums on smacking and addressing the real causes of child abuse.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
20 December 2007
Family First Rubbishes Police Review on Smacking Law
Family First NZ is labelling the review on the smacking law released today as inaccurate and misleading.
"The police report claims that, on average, one smacking complaint is being dealt with by the police each week nationwide," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "This is totally false and simply reflects the fact that many calls that police are attending are being deemed so inconsequential that the police attending are not even recording the information in the database."
The report says that "an absence of a notification on a Police file does not necessarily mean that no notification was made."
"Recent research from Christchurch School of Medicine shows that up to 80% of parents are continuing to smack their children without abusing them. And people who are collecting signatures for the Referendum against the anti-smacking law are regularly being told of parents being investigated by police. In one half hour period, one collector was told of three investigations alone, two of them on grandparents.
"If there is really only one complaint a week as claimed, we really need to be asking why the politicians spent so much time, energy and debate on a law that had so little need - or effect," says Mr McCoskrie.
"And meanwhile, child abuse continues with five child abuse deaths since the passing of the law including Nia Glassie, 16 month old Sachin Dhani, and ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa from Manurewa."
"The smacking law has failed to stem the tide of child abuse, but has targeted many good parents and grandparents with the trauma and fear of police investigation and CYF involvement.
Nine cases alone notified to Family First have been documented on their website: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html
Family First believes that the full weight of the anti-smacking law will not be felt until after the election – to avoid further political fallout. Currently, there are approximately 245,000 signatures on a petition demanding Referendums on smacking and addressing the real causes of child abuse.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Media
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3585.html
Three month review of Police activity following the enactment of the Crimes Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007(
1:57pm 20 December 2007
Police have undertaken a three month review of the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act (the Smacking Bill) to gauge the impact on police activity.
During the period 23 June 2007 to 28 September 2007 there was no increase in the number of smacking events Police attended with three in each three month period and an increase of two events of "minor physical discipline."
Deputy Commissioner, Rob Pope says claims that the repeal of section 59 of the Act would lead to the prosecution of parents and the removal of children from their homes as a result of minor acts of physical discipline have proved unfounded.
"While this is only a three month snapshot I am confident that police are taking the same common sense approach to these events as we always have, with officers using their discretion to ensure the appropriate action is taken."
In total over the three month period police attended 111 child assault events, three of which involved "smacking" and 12 of which involved "minor acts of physical discipline".
All of the 15 cases were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute. However warnings were given out in nine cases.
Two of the cases were referred to Family Violence Co-ordinators, four were referred to Child, Youth and Family, three were referred to inter-agency case management meetings and one was referred to Family Works for family support. Seven of the cases were not referred to another agency. NB one case was referred to more than one agency.
Mr Pope said Police would continue to monitor the impact the amendment was having on a six monthly basis to ensure that any issues that arose could be addressed promptly.
The review report can be accessed here:
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/section-59-activity-review/
ENDS
Jon Neilson
Media
04 474 9482
Three month review of Police activity following the enactment of the Crimes Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007(
1:57pm 20 December 2007
Police have undertaken a three month review of the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act (the Smacking Bill) to gauge the impact on police activity.
During the period 23 June 2007 to 28 September 2007 there was no increase in the number of smacking events Police attended with three in each three month period and an increase of two events of "minor physical discipline."
Deputy Commissioner, Rob Pope says claims that the repeal of section 59 of the Act would lead to the prosecution of parents and the removal of children from their homes as a result of minor acts of physical discipline have proved unfounded.
"While this is only a three month snapshot I am confident that police are taking the same common sense approach to these events as we always have, with officers using their discretion to ensure the appropriate action is taken."
In total over the three month period police attended 111 child assault events, three of which involved "smacking" and 12 of which involved "minor acts of physical discipline".
All of the 15 cases were determined to be inconsequential and therefore not in the public interest to prosecute. However warnings were given out in nine cases.
Two of the cases were referred to Family Violence Co-ordinators, four were referred to Child, Youth and Family, three were referred to inter-agency case management meetings and one was referred to Family Works for family support. Seven of the cases were not referred to another agency. NB one case was referred to more than one agency.
Mr Pope said Police would continue to monitor the impact the amendment was having on a six monthly basis to ensure that any issues that arose could be addressed promptly.
The review report can be accessed here:
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/section-59-activity-review/
ENDS
Jon Neilson
Media
04 474 9482
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
