• 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

    www.dontvotelabour.org.nz
  • Unity For Liberty


    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter


  • November 2020
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    30  
  • 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 | »

    FI418-Littlies Poll

    By HEF Admin | July 14, 2008

    14 July 2008 Family Integrity #418 — Littlies Poll

    Gidday All,
    One crowd that was manipulated by the Commissioner for Children Cindy Kiro into doing shonky “research” to support the repeal of Section 59 was the Littlies Lobby.
    They’ve got a poll on just now: check it out at the bottom of their home page at: www.littlies.co.nz
    Here are the results so far:

    One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?

    Yes (8%)

    No (83%)

    Unsure (9%)

    (http://www.littlies.co.nz/poll_results.asp)

    They just can’t make that 83% AGAINST repealing Section 59 go away…even one year on!!

    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
    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/
    Our Home….Our Castle

    Topics: Family Integrity email newsletter | 3 Comments »

    3 Responses to “FI418-Littlies Poll”

    1. Darran Lowes Says:
      July 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am

      There’s a HUGE difference between “83% think that the anti-Smacking bill was has proved to be ineffective” and “83% are against repealing Section 59”

      The truth of the matter is that since the Bill was passed into law, NO parents have been sent to prison without due cause, and TRUE abuse reporting has increased substantially, exactly as the Bill intended. Wake up and see that this isn’t an attack on your ‘right to lovingly discipline your child’. It’s an attack on anyone’s right to ever strike a child yet claim ‘reasonable force’, even when the child has been traumatised.

    2. Mrs Dianne Woodward Says:
      July 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am

      Radio Live’s Paul Henry interviewed Nigel Latta (clinical psychologist) on 25th March, he deals with the worst end of family violence and is an authority on child abuse who agrees a light smack shouldn’t result in a visit from CYFS (Feilding Mum knows about this) or Police (as the Senior Journalist in Auckland experienced). MP’s have sold parents a lie that a smack is violence against children, and just tightening up Section 59 (as Chester Borrows believed) could have sorted it. National Party are demanding along with Act, Family, Kiwi Parties that we put the questions on our voting paper so 85% of us can have a say on election day as demanded by Sheryl Savill and Larry Baldocks Petition for a Referendum. Fortunately Family First (lobby group) reports to us the facts that some guilty good parents and even grandparents are being persecuted presently (just not jailed yet that will come in a few years no doubt when all the protesters like me stop EFB 1/1/08 helps to ensure that happens). The only right and just thing for our PM to do is allow us a chance to give our own opinion. The only married Miss in Aoteroa is denying 85% of us a chance to be heard, we must let our opinion out on our Voting Paper its absolute arrogance from Labour, Green and United Future Parties if they don’t allow us an oportunity.

    3. Andy Moore Says:
      July 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am

      Heheheh, very interesting. Have now just blogged on this too.

      Oh, just by the way Dianne, though many news articles refer to the Prime Minister as Miss Clark, they are supposed to refer to her as Ms Clark.

    Comments