FI – 238-249

Only two days until the vote on Wednesday 16.

Here is some URGENT reading for you which clarifies some of our concerns about Section 59. We can’t trust the Police or CYFs as our Government plans to vote on the the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world.

1. Politicians will vote this week on the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says “…the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties …. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.” Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html

2. “However, this provision (the new amendment in Section 59) does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services (CYFs) who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family. Read more here:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/14-may-2007-united-future-nz-party.html

3. Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html

Please do not grow weary during these last hours. Please contact your MPs URGENTLY. Thursday will be too late.

Regards
Craig and Barbara
PO Box 9064, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
Fax: (06) 357-4389
http://www.hef.org.nz
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbworldview.cesbooks.co.nz

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

1. Lobbying tools
We need to let the MPs know that we, the majority, do not agree with this re-written Section 59. If you have never written a letter or email to an MP before then now is the time to do it.

EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links several times over the next 11 days:

http://starstuddedsuperstep.com/section59/htm/mp_vote.htm

or

http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413

or

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/MP%20Address%20List.xls

LETTER: A very effective way to lobby, no stamp required for your own MP. Address to: (First Name)(Last Name), c/- Parliament Buildings, Wellington

FAX: This costs a bit more and is time consuming but effective. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf

PHONING: This is much easier to do than it would seem. You just ring the MP’s office and say “Please add my name to the list of people you have who are against the Repeal or amendment of Section 59”. You have to give your name of course and that is it. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf

VISIT: This is by far the hardest to do for some people. But this is most certainly the most effective way to lobby. We are fast running out of time for visiting our MPs. Only one Saturdays before May 16. http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5858C8A5-ACDF-4B35-8D7A-3ABB7B19ACDB/40463/ListOfMembers1820096.pdf

Write letters to editors, talk on talk back shows, get your friends, relations and neighbours involved

——————————————————————————–

2. You can read much commentary about Section 59 here:

Family Integrity newsletters: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/908900
Press Releases: http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/910726
Family Integrity Blog: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

——————————————————————————–

3. “Re-written Section 59 — Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that 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.

——————————————————————————–

Two excellent video clips on Section 59

Jason, 11, speaks out.

Pator Peter Mortlock at Wellington Rally on Section 59: At last, some clear and rational words of truth!

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

Bradford wins complete s. 59 victory
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=112
May 2nd, 2007

Bradford and Clark must be howling with glee and derision. They’ve outlawyered (not to mention out-politicked) opponents of their Bill.
The ‘compromise’ words have no legal effect. They merely “affirm that the Police have a discretion not to prosecute“ – meaning that no new discretion is added, only the existing rules and duties apply.
Worse – to escape prosecution the smack must be “so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution“. Those words can’t have had competent legal consideration from any opposing lawyer.
At the technical level “no public interest” is ludicrous. Of course there will be some public interest in almost every incident. 20% of the population have a passionate interest in forcing the rest to change their child rearing beliefs. That 20% has made it illegal to smack.
There will of course be immense public interest in test cases, and passionate views that it is in the public interest to bring them. The more “inconsequential” the smack, the more deterrent impact a successful prosecution will have.
To disqualify any prosecution it should have said something like “no reasonable public interest” or “no useful purpose would be served that outweighed the public interest in avoiding prosecutions that bring the law in to contempt”.
And then there is the contempt shown for our constitutional traditions. It is fundamental to our law that it is not for the Police to decide what the law is, or ought to be. It is their job to uphold it.
Now the leaders of Parliament are telling the Police to ensure that the courts do not get to consider where the law’s boundaries lie. Here is Parliament cold-bloodedly passing law it does not want enforced.
Any wonder why our criminals think the law is a joke, and we have among the highest levels of violent crime in the Western world.
For years I was the only MP prepared to debate this issue publicly with Ms Bradford. I went to public meetings all over the land with her. She is good company.
But she has the ruthless Marxist view that the ends justify the means. She lied happily about the legal effect of the Bill, on the basis that it was in a good cause. Now she’s drawn the rest of Parliament into legal deceit.

A Friend in Wanganui says on 5 May 2007:

One thing to be remembered with respect to the degree of force –
“inconsequential” must be determined in the light of what is “in the public interest.” Note that the public does not determine what is in the public interest – the police do, then perhaps the courts might have a say. This Bill has been promoted on the basis that it is in the public interest for parliament to disregard the public’s conception of what that interest is – nanny state decides. Here’s the rub! The Police Commissioner is a political appointee – the Police (like CYFs) set their own criteria internally. Howard Broad might not like implements, but he readily admits that others in the Police may have different views so that there will be some diversity of application.
When Howard leaves, then what? If some feminist zealot police Prosecutor makes examples of parents – then what?

Friday, May 04, 2007

Back from the Principal on smacking
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/05/back-from-principal-on-smacking.html
I visited the principal of my children’s school this morning to discuss the issue of my youngest child’s class being asked by their teacher yesterday as to what happened to them at home if they were naughty.

The principal didn’t seem disturbed by this but he’s going to find out why the teacher asked. He didn’t indicate whether or not he thought it was appropriate or not, and it seems there is nothing that can be done to stop teachers asking this question of children.

The upshot is, any person can report any child to CYF if they feel a child is at risk of emotional or physical harm. There is nothing the principal can do if a teacher decides that smacking constitutes physical harm and decides to report it.

As this is a Catholic school, I gave him a copy of the Bishop’s statement (http://www.catholic.org.nz/statements/0704children.php, initially blogged by Mr Tips, http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/05/hope-springs-eternal.html), containing the following key sentences:

However, we also recognise that alongside the need to protect children’s safety and wellbeing, there is also a need to protect the subsidiarity of families, which means government should not interfere unnecessarily with decisions that families are able to make for themselves. Family subsidiarity should be respected unless a child’s safety is at risk. We do not see minor and infrequent acts of physical punishment as putting a child’s safety at risk.

I also asked when it comes to a conflict between our faith and the government, what takes precedence in a Catholic school. He said for him, the faith would, but he knows of a number of Catholic school principals that would most likely report parents for smacking.

There are also school programmes for keeping children safe, and he thinks it’s likely that smacking will be included in those programmes. That means, that school children will most likely be told that they are not to be smacked as this is harmful to them.

At this point, I’m not really sure what to do next, apart from waiting to see what the teacher’s reason for asking was.

Right now, I’m very, very disturbed.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http;//www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

This kind of thing makes me ill. The big sell-out. These folks will relax over a latte. Many of us will be in panic mode, stressed to the max with sleepless nights, wondering how we can live in a country that says it is illegal for us to correct our children.

http://section59.blogspot.com/2007/05/welcome-to-machine.html

Please continue to write furiously to the MPs and paper editors.

I have been reminded by the Timaru riding crop lady that the Police are required to report any incident of “family violence” that comes to their notice. Once the bill goes through, even the lightest, most reasonable force used to correct your child (which under the present S.59 is the ONLY LEGALLY JUSTIFIED force you may use with your child), will be classed as “family violence”. In addition, the Police are often FORCED by CYFS to prosecute, even when they don’t want to. That was the case with the Timaru lady. That was also the case with Don & Ann Eathorne in Karamea last year….CYFS forced the Police to prosecute an incident that happened a couple of years earlier…they were convicted of the most minor of smacks to an open hand with a wooden spoon, because the judge felt a message needed to be sent to the NZ public. And now this exemplary couple have a criminal record, preventing them from travel, from work in many areas, etc. A true miscarriage of justice.

Another good comment on this business in at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00093.htm

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

I need to add another quote to go with the last post, #241.

This is Helen Clark being interviewed by homosexuals and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:

Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?

A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.

Here we have the Prime Minister saying it is an acceptable practise for the Government to marginalise certain people groups.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

The question is: what do we do now that John Key and National appear to have completely surrendered the country to the radical feminist-Marxist agenda of Labour and the Greens by agreeing to an inconsequential amendment to let them get Bradford’s anti-parenting bill through?

Let’s just review a few quotes to bring into focus the nature of the people we are dealing with in parliament. And then we’ll review a few facts:

A Collection of Quotes from Key, Clark & Bradford
“I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary” — John Key, press release, 18 April 2007.

“I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate. I’m no supporter of these hard right religions.”

“Personally I have no problems with Civil Unions… there was an argument put forward that civil unions would undermine marriage, and I never believed that line….We have friends who are a gay couple bringing up children, I would support any gay or lesbian couple bringing up children, I would hope for them what I want for any children and that is for them to give the best parental instruction and love and attention that they can for the children that are in their care…..I don’t care what people’s sexual preferences are, It’s for them to determine that….as far as I am concerned, is their business and their business alone.”

Sexual ‘preferences?’ There’s that scary word beloved of fundamentalist preachers. Does Key believe that we glbt people exercise a choice over our sexuality? “No. I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behavior, personally I believe that is crap. The only way I can express that is that I am not gay and that is not a conscious decision I made, it’s just the way I feel. I assume that gay people have other feelings.”

(These three paragraphs are from a 3 December 2006 interview with John Key at: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/templates/Political.asp?articleid=1587&zoneid=3. I’d like to point out that paedophilia and necrophilia and bestiality are other sexual preferences and I’m sure they too “have other feelings”, John. So do you not care about those people’s sexual preferences either?)

“Marriage has a lot of inappropriate connotations. It carries associations with religion, belief etc. My personal interest is in a secular society and I think a civil unions bill is very important….” – Helen Clark – Express Magazine 11 February 2004

NZ Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark says the Government’s role is whatever the Government defines that role to be. – Dominion Post 4 March 2003. Spoken in reply to a question as to whether it was Government’s role to fund the next America’s Cup challenge to the tune of $5.6 million.

“[Remember] 2002, and Clark’s now infamous comment at the state banquet for the Queen that “New Zealand is now a secular country”, and grace would not be said at the meal.” – Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.

“I felt really compromised. I think legal marriage is unnecessary and I would not have formalised the relationship [with husband Peter Davis] except for going into Parliament. I have always railed against it privately.” — Helen Clark, Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.

Retired political studies lecturer Ruth Butterworth, a long time friend of Clark’s, is quoted in Brian Edwards PR-piece, Helen, remembering the black mood at the “wedding”.
“She was resistant up to the last minute. I mean, she was crying on the day. It was just so awful because it was so deeply against her principles.” — Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.

Sue Bradford brought us: lowered drinking age and decriminalised prostitution. She tried to give us a less-dangerous classification for “P” and lowered penalties for child pornograpy. She is all for legalising marijuana and not requiring birth mothers to name the fathers on the birth certificates. She justifies this last item with the following words straight from Hansard of 1 March 2007 (see http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_03_01.htm) in a debate on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill:

“…If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father – whether they choose to or not.”

“Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby, which would probably be covered by the “undue distress” exemption, there are a
range of other situations where women may not wish to have the father of their child’s name registered.

“One is where the woman is in a same-sex relationship, wants her partner to share parental responsibilities, but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted
reproductive technology. Another is where the woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile, but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where the woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement financially or emotionally from another parent. These are all reasonable choices for women to want to make, and choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 proposed by this Bill, they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make.”

“… This aspect of the Bill is nothing short of draconian – it makes criminals out of women who wish to make choices to raise their children without the involvement of their biological father. ”

(It seems to me that Bradford’s ideology is so foreign and radical to anything average New Zealanders understand as normal and healthy that she is not to be taken seriously. Yet she and Clark are running the show and people like Key can’t help themselves from falling in behind.)

There are at least two aspects of this Bill which are to be feared:

Correction, deemed even today in law to be “justified” or “right”, is soon to be thoroughly condemned as wrong. Why is this? What’s the evil in “correction” that this bill is trying to “correct”?

In spite of the grand amendment to the re-write of Section 59, please note that whereas the old Section 59 said parents were “justified” — had done what is right and therefore could not be held guilty — in using reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their own children, in this Bill the use of any force for the purpose of correcting your own child (that is, not just smacking) is clearly and emphatically declared to be outside the law. It is referred to even in this wonderful amendment itself as an “offence”, even when it is inconsequential. The correction of children by parents is now legally condemned if one uses any force above the level of “inconsequential”.

So what is “inconsequential” force when used for correction? I would suggest it is force that has no consequences; that it failed to correct the child’s behaviour.

The debate has raged over smacking, and so the focus is on physical force, but the bill condemns simply “force”. Smacking is not mentioned in the re-write of Section 59, so someone looking to prosecute parents for “correcting” a child may consider any kind of force in any form. Until this is defined or limited to only physical force, what other kinds of force will be ruled illegal, and how many families will have to be destroyed by the justice system’s machinations in order to get those precedents and definitions. (Yesterday’s post quoted Police Commissioner Howard Broad saying that they will get there, using the courts and the Police Complaints Authority…an indication that it will take time and a number of families as fodder for the court’s grist mill).

Now force is at the bare minimum: to force the parent’s will upon that of the child. It can be physical. I would suggest it can also be moral force, appeals to tradition or one’s faith or religious or philosophical or ethical or cultural or ethnic practices, withdrawal of privileges, grounding, reasoning, striking a bargain, etc. These forms of force might be considered positive and reasonable and valid by most. But if a clever lawyer ever names any of these as a form of force that is more than inconsequential — that is, use of this form of force actually corrected the child — then surely that parent has committed an offence…the offence of correcting a child using force.

Until “correction” and “force” are defined in law, anything can happen.

(As an aside, other forms of force that most would consider negative and unhealthy include verbal scolding and character assassination and emotional manipulation, intimidation, threats, isolation, humiliation, etc., etc. One of these is more likely to be affirmed in a court of law as an illegal use of force for correction. Because it is not physical force, the door is then opened to specifically condemn also the positive and reasonable forms of non-physical force mentioned earlier, if they succeed in correcting children. It appears that with this bill, correcting children, no matter how it is done, will be forever after classed as a crime, one that merely awaits a legal precedent to be set by some anti-family, anti-parent lawyer testing such a prosecution of correction by non-physical use of force in court. It will happen one day.)

Having a reasonable doubt normally acquits people in court. This bill requires a court to convict people when a doubt exists.

It is obvious that it is “correction” that is being written into law as a criminal activity, not the use of “reasonable force”. “Reasonable force” was said by Bradford to hide all manner of severe beatings and abuse. But she did not remove the term “reasonable force” from the re-write. Instead it is now right there in subsection 1 of the Bill before Parliament, and is said to be justified when used to do all sorts of things to children, but not to correct them.

The really scary part of this bill is that subsection 2 condemns the correction of children and then subsection 3 requires that subsection 2 prevail over subsection 1. (The entire re-write is reprinted below.) So if a nosey neighbour accuses you of abusing your child and you end up in court defending yourself, if the court cannot determine, that is, has doubts about whether the force you used was for correction of offensive behaviour or for prevention of offensive behaviour, because they have a doubt, subsection 3 requires the court to make the corrective interpretation prevail over the preventative interpretation. And since the court is required to find that you used the force to correct your child, you will be convicted of child assault, worth as much as 2 years in jail (see Section 194a of the Crimes Act).

Maxim Institute also makes a helpful analysis of this amendment at: http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=994. They also agree it is totally useless.

Re-written Section 59 — Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or 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.

So What Do We Do Now?

Same as before: lobby your MP furiously and every other MP as well.
Castigate John Key from one end to the other.
Demand that they define “correction”.
Ask if this forbidden “correction” is the same as “discipline” or “training” or “chastisement”.
Ask them if it is true that contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will now be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose of the force used?
Write these same questions to your local newspaper editors.
Ask these same questions on talk back radio.

Pray for God’s deliverance from this disaster.

Update your passports. Reactivate your Australian contacts.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

Confusing times
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill.

Good on John Key I thought. He’s taken the high ground and made a difference. That’s what I thought. Until I saw the amendment.
It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it’s Helen Clark!! This amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms “inconsequential” and “public interest”.

Then John Key wips the National Party caucus to vote for it. So now Labour and National are voting for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. The criticisms National made of the Bill still stand except now they are all voting for it.

But get this: I move Chester Borrows’ amendment last night because he wouldn’t. That defines clearly what is allowed and what is not. National voted against it, including Chester.

It must be the jet lag or something. I can’t figure it out!

Here is an interesting exchange with Chester:

I ask Mr Borrows whether it is true that the police have a decision not to prosecute.
Chester Borrows: Yes.
RODNEY HIDE: So this does nothing to Sue Bradford’s bill?
Chester Borrows: No.

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

I posted a slight error yesterday about this new amendment being co-sponsored by Labour, Greens, National and UF.

Here is the full SOP (Supplementary Order Paper) which introduced it to the Parliamentary process:

http://tinyurl.com/ysgz5o

It says that the amendment is actually going to become part of the new, re-written Section 59. Yesterday I said it would simply be part of the bill changing Section 59, but not part of the re-written Section 59 itself. I was in error.

So what difference does that make? I believe it makes no difference. Key and Clark say it makes all the difference in the world. Bradford says it makes a very slight difference.

To get one’s head around all this stuff, one needs to watch the two video clips listed here. Be quick, because they don’t stay on these websites for long.

Close up Wednesday 2 May 2007 with Simon Barnet, Helen Clark, John Key & Sue Bradford, under title, “People power or political brinkmanship.”

http://tinyurl.com/94r9b

and

TV3 Wednesday 2 May 2007, Police Commissioner Howard Broad, under title: “Destiny and the ‘anti-smacking’ legislation”

http://tinyurl.com/2hwpe2

The CloseUp clip shows Key saying the bill was going to pass as it was and would criminalise every parent who ever smacked. “The Bill is [now] better than it was from our perspective. We don’t believe that good parents will be criminalised. But let me say this Mark: If once the Bill is passed, if good criminals…er…good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking their children, and I become Prime Minister of New Zealand, we will change the law.”

I am going to shamelessly focus on Key’s slip of the tongue, calling parents criminals. Simon Barnett says in the clip above that Parliament has treated the parents of NZ with complete contempt. And this is why. They hold us in contempt. Every thing Bradford and Clark and even Key says on this is that Section 59 had to be changed to make NZ a less violent place. Now remember: Section 59 is only even raised as a defence 1.4 times a year and over half of those are found guilty.

So what is their problem with Section 59? I thought it was the provision for parents to use “reasonable force” with their children and that Kiro and Bradford and the pro-repealers were all saying that severe beatings and abuse of all kind were hiding behind this label of “reasonable force”. But then we find that Bradford’s re-write of Section 59 DOES NOT get rid of the “reasonable force” provision.

So what IS their problem with Section 59? It is that Section 59 says it is RIGHT (“parents are justified”) to CORRECT their children. Bradford’s re-write of Section 59 emphatically says that for parents to CORRECT their children is WRONG. Her bill’s outstanding trait is that it creates a new crime: correction of children with the use of even the most reasonable level of force.

The police are instructed in the Bill (but Police Commissioner Howard says they always have it) to use discretion. But this discretion is to be used, if they want to use it…..they don’t have to…..when they come across “offenses” (parents using force to correct their children) which are “inconsequential”. Clark says a couple of times that the law should not and will not, because of this amendment, “concern itself with trifles”. They make it clear that any use of force that is not “inconsequential” is unacceptable violence.

At the original press conference to announce this amendment, a reporter asked Bradford if light smacking was now OK. Her response: “Not it’s not. Not at all.”

At this same press conference, Key said, “The Prime Minister and I put politics aside and let sanity prevail.” As I heard someone else say, “This Prime Minister NEVER puts politics aside.” Key went on to enumerate National’s three objectives in this: 1) That parents can have confidence they won’t be criminalised for “lightly smacking a child”; 2) police have clear guidelines; and 3) “I think it’s a very important step for New Zealand in becoming a safer and less violent community.”

They all agree on this: that Section 59, which says it is RIGHT for parents to CORRECT children, is what is causing NZ to be a violent society! Key is saying all us parents ARE already criminals. Bradford and Clark have been saying it over the past month or six weeks ever since Labour MP Russell Fairbrother circulated a bizarre opinion that smacking has been illegal for over 100 years.

The amendment will be subsection 4 of the new re-written Section 59, so it will look like this, barring any new amendments:

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.

Note that subsection 4, this new amendment by Key, Clark, etc., refers to “an offence involving the use of force against a child”. That is the offence of “correction”. It is not an offence to use “reasonable force” on a child to minimise harm, stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when the “reasonable force” is incidental to good care and parenting (subsections 1a through 1d). The offence in using ANY force with a child is when the purpose of using the force is correction (subsection 2). The amendment says the Police have the option, the luxury of turning a blind eye, if the force used for correction, which is a criminal offence according to subsection 2, “is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.” But they don’t have to ignore it, because subsection 2 does define it as a crime, regardless of how inconsequential it is.

John Key says that means light smacks will be ok. Bradford insists that light smacks are never ok. In the CloseUp clip, Bradford says, “The Police will still investigate, I hope, every report of assault on a child and that is as it should be.” She then said the amendment was “a direction to Police making it clear that Parliament is saying if the offense is totally inconsequential, that Parliament is not expecting that the Police should feel that they must prosecute.”

Light smacks that are inconsequential MIGHT be safe from prosecution, but may not be safe from investigation and reporting to CYFS, as Simon Barnett points out on the CloseUp clip. Once CYFS gets involved in a child investigation, life as you know it comes to an end. As talk-back radio has been saying: Police who do nothing about an investigation into an inconsequential incident with parents A & B will be hung if later on that same A & B severely abuse the same kid. So Police will investigate if it comes to their notice and will probably at minimum refer it to CYFS.

Light smacks that are inconsequential are, as every parent knows, inconsequential and ineffective and useless. The smack is delivered in the objective that it will be CONsequential, not INconsequential. That is, effective smacking for corrective purposes under this new bill will be as illegal as ever Bradford wanted it to be at the beginning. The only refuge parents may find, if they are accused and investigated for correcting a child using force, is to make out that their corrective discipline was possibly corrective, but in fact inconsequential; or that it was NOT corrective but instead designed to stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or that it was incidental to good care and parenting.

Yes, I believe correction is an essential part of good care and parenting. And it includes a lot more than light smacks. But it is about to become a heinous crime, one that can be prosecuted under the laws against assault and worth from 2 to 5 years in jail. Force used to correct a child is not just smacking. It includes grabbing my child by the arm or shoulders and marching him to the neighbour to apologise for throwing rocks through his garage window. It includes forcibly taking his piggy bank out of his hands and taking his money out of it to pay the neighbour for the damage done. It includes forcing him to sit at the table and write and re-write until it is done properly a formal letter of apology including an assurance that he won’t do such daft things again. And if it means he has to forego tea and dessert that night and any electronic entertainment or communication for a month to force him to do as I require, so be it.

I fielded a number of calls and emails today about people wanting to leave NZ, wondering what it’s like in various parts of Australia.

Let me also quote from the video clip above as Campbell Live interviewed Commissioner for Police Howard Broad:

Campbell: Is this “discretion” going to be applied differently in different parts of NZ?
Broad: Yes, it’s a human-made decision with 8,000 officers applying it up and down the country. “Reasonably confident that, subject to a small amount of variation, we’ll be able to work.”
Broad: “There is no mandatory exercise of the powers of the Police. Discretion always applies.”
Broad: “What the proposed legislation does is lower the threshhold around what is considered to be the level of force before a prosecution. I think it’s actually quite substantially reduced that. And that is going to be where the difficulty is for Police, finding that point. That’s where the difficulty will be. But we’ll find it, and we’ll be guided by the courts, we’ll be guided by our own experience; the Police Complaints authority might have a part to play, and so on.”

Campbell: Are the use of jug cords and riding crops out of the question now?
Broad: “Clearly in my view situations using implements like jug cords or practically any implement, I think, is now considered beyond what is acceptable. I think it’s been actually quite a useful exercise, really, because the country is coming to grips with the causes and the factors associated with violence. And it’s publicised and discussed, the use of force, in a whole range of circumstances. I think that’s been extremely valuable. I say again that this legislation has reduced the threshhold at which action will be taken. And I think people do have to come to grips with that now.”

Campbell: “So people who are accostomed to using things like wooden spoons or any kind of implements have to understand that the law has changed and they can no longer do that?”
Broad: “I think so and also we’ve got to be extremely careful in those moments when force is applied ‘where’ to a child. You know, hitting a child in the head for example; I don’t think that’s acceptable.”

Campbell: “But the sort of scaremongering that went on that any kind of smack, any kind of small slap on the wrist or bottom was going to be illegal is now dealt with by this use of the term ‘discretion’?”
Broad: “I think so, and the proposal in the legislation ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ makes it absolutely crystal clear that the Police are expected to apply that discretion for levels of force that are inconsequential. And that is a fairly clear message to the public, if it was ever needed, for the Police.”

Campbell: So my summary would be that you think this is about as good an outcome as we could have had?
Broad: I’m actually quite comfortable with where we are.

Now there are some scary things here. He says the threshhold for the use of force has been quite substantially reduced. He’s talking about force used to correct, not do the things listed in subsections 1a through 1d. It has been reduced to inconsequential before you MIGHT not be prosecuted should such a use of force come to the notice of police. And Broad says it will be tricky finding that point, but they’ll be guided by the courts and the complaints authority. That means it will require family after family to be systematically destroyed by court processes over giving a smack with a wooden spoon, regardless of what the child did, in order to set definitions and precedents.

Reasonable force is ok for stopping offensive behaviour (subsection 1c) but not for correcting the offensive behaviour. Where do you draw the line? What is it about wanting to correct bad behaviour into good that is so hated by Bradford? It is not clear if implements are allowed to be used in the purposes named in subsections 1a through 1d. I’ve writen to Bradford, Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission, Howard Broad of the Police Commission, Rajen Prasad of the Families Commission and several others about this, the definition of “correction” and other things back in April. Let’s see what they say.

As far as I can make out, politically, Labour was damaged big time and continuing to take many hits. They were bleeding all over the place, and deathly pale. If Key had stood back, they would have died at the polls and the next election. Instead, Key gives Clark a blood transfusion, saves her and tosses a lifeline to the Greens at the same time. In doing so he has secured the total demise of the National Party, caused them to be seen as Labourites dressed in Blue.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

This will be debated later today and tonight in Parliament

www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/parliament

Parliament is sitting today from 2pm to 6pm and again from 7:30pm to 10pm. This link above is good during those times.

The understanding is that the final vote won’t happen today but will most likely now take place in 2 weeks, 16 May, and become law a month after the Governor General gets round to signing it.

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf