• Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    “That’s some of the reasons why the ACT party stands for the repeal of this anti-smacking legislation, and that’s why I do too,” said Mr Tashkoff Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
  • Recent Posts

  • Networkedblogs

  • Recent Comments

  • Christian Blog Topsites

    Christian Blog Topsites
  • Tags

  • Don’t Vote Labour

  • Unity For Liberty

    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter

  • January 2021
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug    
  • abort73

    For more information about abortion and what you can do to help, please visit... Abort73.com http://www.abort73.com/
  • Archives

  • Statcounter since February 2008

  • online counter
  • Meta

  • Blog Catalog since May 2008

  • « | Main | »

    Let’s change Section 59 by adding clear definitions of what unreasonable force is

    By HEF Admin | August 6, 2006

    Let’s change Section 59 by adding clear definitions of what unreasonable force is, so that this section of the Crimes Act could never be used to excuse child abuse.

    Section 59 is never used to excuse child abuse. That’s why it was formulated and placed in the Crimes Act in the first place. The idea that Section 59 is ever used this way is a spin used by Sue Bradford and other repeal lobbyists. Judges and juries are perfectly capable of discerning abuse from “reasonable force used by way of correction.” Section 59 even flexes in harmony with changing social attitudes. Section 59 is brilliant just as it is. It gives parents just the amount of authority they need to train and correct their children without giving them license to harm. If Section 59 was repealed, parents would lose their authority over their children (authority with no power to back it up with force is no authority at all). In addition we’d be left with a Section 2 definition of assault which will make every parent guilty of assault several times a day!

    (Section 2 of the Crimes Act reads: “Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

    Topics: Correspondence | No Comments »