Family Integrity #130 — Less than 3 weeks to go – Section 59 – What can we be doing now?.
Within THREE weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This is supposed to happen by 31 October 2006, but could happen before then. The second reading of the Bill will occur sometime after that – which could be before October 31. Therefore time is running out. We all need to act now. Above all we must be much in prayer that God’s Will will be done. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Plus we need to see a public firestorm of protest to the MPs. So please let others know too. Here are some ways:
1. CALL TO REPENTANCE AS A NATION As we get very near to the 2nd reading of Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act we need to remember that this is God’s battle not ours. It may be God’s Will for Section 59 to be repealed, perhaps as a sort of judgement for turning away from God and His word. As we suffer persecution the Church will be purified. Perhaps this can all be avoided. Let us be like the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5 where they believed God and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth. In Jonah 3:8 the King said “let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them cry mightily to God; yea, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?” Then came Jonah 3:10 “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.”
We also have the example of Ethelred and Alfred the Great from History.
The battle was about to begin. Alfred went to look for his brother the King and he found him with the Priest:
“Ethelred-my brother-my king,” he cried, “the Danes are upon us. Their lines are formed. My men are ready. A moment’s delay may lose the battle.” But Ethelred said quietly:
“It is the service of God. Our priest is saying prayers for us and for our men. Shall I forsake the help of God to trust in men and in weapons? It is meet that the king pray for his people.”
Ethelred and Alfred had success that day. Two months later King Ethelred died and Alfred became King of England. At the end of AD 877 after 7 years as King and many victories in battle he lost his throne, luxurious lifestyle and went many a day with nothing to eat and lived hidden in the bogs and marshes. In May AD 878 he gathered together a rag tag army of the farmers around him. Before going into battle he prayed with his men a prayer of repentance. They had Victory at that battle. Here is King Alfred’s War Song
When the Enemy comes in a’roarin’ like a flood
Coveting the kingdom and hungering for blood,
The Lord will rasie a standard up and lead His people on,
The Lord of Hosts will go before defeating every foe;
defeating every foe.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.
Some men trust in chariots, some trust in the horse,
But we will depend upon the name of Christ our Lord,
The Lord has made my hands to war and my fingers to fight.
The Lord lays low our enemies but he raises us upright.
He raises us upright.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.
A thousand fall on my left hand, ten thousand to the right,
But He will defend us from the arrow in the night,
Protect us from the terrors of the teeth of the devourer,
Imbue us with your Spirit, Lord, encompass us with power;
encompass us with power.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend us.
For the Lord is our defender, Jesu defend.
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=tappan&book=alfred&story=horse
So people of New Zealand let us pray prayers of repentance like King Alfred the Great and be like the people of Nineveh who cried mightly to God; yea, every one turned from his evil way and from the violence which was in his hands.
We might yet see God’s hand keep Section 59 from being repealed.
2. The Select Committee will be meeting for their final time on THURSDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2006 12:25pm to 1:00pm and will be reporting back to Parliament sometime after that. The second reading could be before October 31. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing/visiting/phoning/faxing our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at:
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters/emails/faxes to the MPs.
4. While we are praying for the Select Committe as they discuss their recommendations to the MPs regarding the repeal of Section 59 let us also be praying for the Case of the Seven Children that Ruby Harrold-Claesson spoke of so often while she was in New Zealand. Seven children were taken from their parents because the father “disturbed the peace” of his children in 2003. He spent one month in jail and the children were put into care – taken from the mother even though she was not involved. The father was found not guilty but the children were not returned. The family is in 4 differrent places at the moment. Ruby is still waiting to hear the verdict on this case. This is what Ruby said in an email this morning 11/10/06: “Sorry, no verdict as yet. However, yesterday I received a new decision from the social workers forbidding all telephone and other contacts between the father and the handicapped son, who by the way has been moved to seven different homes since October 16, 2003 when he was removed from the loving care of his parents.”
5. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
PS From previous countdown emails: If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810.It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby. And read this article:
Should Reasonable Correction Of Children Be Illegal? – An Article About Michael Drake’s New Book
2. Buy these DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825
Advert for all three DVDs, Broadband users – (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users – (1 min 37 sec)
5. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs
6. If you have not already then read this article in the 19 Sept 06 Herald – “Parents should sit licence test, say experts.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
and then read this article:
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm
7. Listener Poll results:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html:
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason.
8. Letters to the Listener Editor :
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3465/letters/7156.html
and
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/letters/7097.html
(You can still write letters to the Listener Editor, via email,
letters@listener.co.nz
or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address. Then turn those emails/letters into letters to the MPs)
9. If you have been forwarded this email and would like to be on Family Integrity’s “email newsletter list” then please send an email to Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz and put “Count me in” in the subject line.
10. Please email barbara@hef.org.nz, if you do not want to receive these emails or if you are on more than one list and would like to be taken off one or more lists.
Please forward this email to everyone you think would be interested.
Family Integrity # 129 — Pansy Wong wants to hear from you
Well, friends, MP Pansy Wong is here asking for our opinions. Let’s give them to her.
(www.pansywong.co.nz)
(www.national.org.nz)
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00166.htm
Pansy Speak: A logical debate about smacking
Wednesday, 11 October 2006, 9:25 am
Column: New Zealand National Party
A logical debate about smacking
Judging by the large number of emails asking me to support or vote
against the ‘anti-smacking’ bill, the deadline for a decision must be
just around the corner.
The contentious bill in question is Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Abolition of
Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, which
repeals Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 allows parents or guardians who are facing charges of using
force against a child the legal defence that the force is justified as
long as it is reasonable in the circumstances.
Over the past 10 years there have been a handful of reported
high-profile cases where parents or guardians were acquitted of charges
by using Section 59 as their defence. This left many us dumbfounded
because bruises or welts were clearly visible on the tiny bodies shown
in the photos.
These high-profile cases have served as the catalyst for this bill and
have led to vigorous debate.
The debate has been extended to the ‘cycle of violence’ and the need for
this to be broken. It’s difficult to argue against this, and most people
would agree that no violence should be inflicted on children.
I doubt very much that in cases where Section 59 has been used as a
defence that the parents or guardians involved knew that there was such
a defence open to them. It’s more likely that their legal counsel came
up with the defence after the violent act was carried out.
Therefore, revoking this clause could serve as punishment for those
offenders but I doubt that scratching the clause from law will act as a
deterrent to those who use force against their child. In most cases
where children are the victims of violence they live in horrific
circumstances where drugs, alcohol, dysfunctional relationships and
poverty are all a part of daily life.
This bill offers the blunt option of revoking Section 59, which only
offers two choices, change or maintaining the status quo. In two recent
polls, one in Stuff and other published by The Dominion Post, 84% and
82% respectively supported retaining Section 59. Other polls have also
reflected this trend.
The Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Unit study has
also shown that parents and guardians are able to deliver appropriate
physical discipline.
Some 1,000 children have been tracked since they were born in Dunedin
during 1972 and 1973. The latest interview was conducted in 2004 when
the study members were 32 years old. Eighty per cent said they’d been
physically punished at home during their childhood, 29% had been only
smacked, 45% had been hit with an object such as a strap or wooden
spoon, and 6% had suffered extreme physical punishment.
The study also found that the 29% who were only smacked had ‘similar or
even slightly better outcomes’, in terms of aggression, substance abuse,
adult convictions and school achievement, than those who were not
smacked.
Those who support repealing Section 59 argue that ‘smacking’ a child
would not lead to parents or guardians being charged because that
decision would be with the police. There is an assumption that common
sense will prevail, yet, if that was true then offenders who had left
cuts and welts on their children’s body wouldn’t be acquitted under the
current legislation. So much for common sense!
Do we really want our over-worked police to be called in to decide
whether to prosecute, or not, each time a case is reported? Involving
police in domestic situations without clear guidance will only make the
situation even murkier and undermine the goodwill that exists between
police and the communities they work in.
How will making our police define what’s smacking, and what’s not, move
the debate along any further? It only pushes the issue further down the
line because it’s not resolved.
In the current climate, where the Government is increasingly interfering
with our personal lives, many are fed up with the notion that they can’t
be trusted to exercise their own judgment.
What do you think? Should Section 59 be repealed or not? Is there a
middle ground for this issue? Please email your thoughts to
pansy.wong[at]national.org.nz
Pansy Wong
www.pansywong.co.nz
www.national.org.nz
Family Integrity #128 — I’ll pull my Bill — Yes, please!
I’ll Pull My Bill, Bradford Warns
http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=340851&catid=32
11:57 am, 11 Oct 2006
Green MP Sue Bradford warns she will withdraw her bill removing
protection for parents who physically discipline their children if a
parliamentary majority tries to dilute it by defining reasonable force.
As a select committee considers whether to change the bill before
reporting it back to Parliament at the end of the month, Otago
University researchers have published a study finding that children who
are smacked lightly with an open hand grow up unharmed.
Opponents to the bill say it will criminalise good parents who
occasionally smack or restrain their children, and Ms Bradford has
already said she would consider an amendment to make clear that parents
who restrain their children to protect them or others are not breaking
the law.
However, she said today it would be “very, very dangerous” as a result
of this sort of research to try to define what sort of hitting or
smacking was acceptable.
Trying to define reasonable force would be the worst thing that could
happen to her Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child
Discipline) Amendment Bill, which would amend the Crimes Act to remove
the defence of reasonable force should a parent be charged with
assaulting their child.
She said she would withdraw the bill if there were the numbers in
Parliament to support a definition of reasonable force, built around
open-handed smacking.
“It would destroy the bill, and I would withdraw it,” she told National
Radio.
“Any attempt to define what is acceptable use of force against violence
children actually undermines everything we are trying to do,” she said.
It would not protect children, but would give parents a blueprint of what
was acceptable violence and undermine education programmes.
“And basically it would make the law even worse by saying our society
actually condones these forms of violence against children, these are
okay.”
The research did not change the rationale for her bill which was to
completely repeal Section 59 of the act so violence against children was
not legitimised.
She was quite happy to agree that children who got the odd light smack
were probably not harmed, but looking at one act of violence on its own
was not enough, she said.
The select committee was trying to write the bill to reassure parents
that the intention was not to have parents who occasionally smack their
kids prosecuted.
Ms Bradford said she did not know if there was enough support for the
bill to pass a second reading.
Some parties are giving their MPs a conscience vote on it.
We could hardly ask for more! Continue to apply pressure to your MP to dump the Bill.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity # 127 — CEOs often smacked as children
CEOs often were spanked as children
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/BUSINESS/610100318/1040
From StatesmanJournal, Salem, Oregon
Question arises of paddling’s role in achievement
BY DEL JONES
Gannett News Service
October 10, 2006
The debate about whether CEOs are born or made remains unresolved, but there is one thing they overwhelmingly have in common.
As children, they were paddled, belted, switched or swatted.
Child psychologists wince at such a finding. They warn that spanking slows mental development and achievement. They say the last thing parents need in the back of their minds is a suggestion or justification that the rod is the road to vision, ruthless drive and other leadership traits common to CEOs.
USA Today interviewed about 20 CEOs during three months and, although none said they were abused, neither were any spared.
Typical is General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, 53. He got an occasional “whack in the fanny,” while growing up in Richmond, Va., but said he had it coming and that it probably had no influence on his life as a high achiever.
“I probably deserved it more,” Wagoner said.
The Securities and Ex-change Commission does not require CEOs to disclose childhood paddlings, so USA Today ambushed them with the question during interviews about other topics.
A handful declined to respond, but most CEOs answered, albeit through forced smiles.
“Very, very rarely,” said Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers, 56, the son of two doctors. “I’m from Charleston, West Virginia. My dad was firmer than my mom.”
Some CEOs had more heavy-handed parents. Dave Haffner, the CEO of Fortune 500 manufacturer Leggett & Platt, said he was familiarized with his father’s belt about six times per year. That includes the time Haffner, then 8 or 9, kicked down the screen door after his brother locked him in the basement.
Is there some connection between corporal punishment and corporate leadership? Most CEOs think spankings played little or no role in their success but usually could cite important lessons learned. “I’m disciplined, detailed and organized,” Haffner said.
Mark Cuban, 48, says he was spanked one or two times but does not remember why. He went on to become worth $2.3 billion, rich enough to buy toys such as the Dallas Mavericks NBA team.
“I got the ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you’ speech from my dad. I don’t think spankings influenced my life one way or the other,” Cuban said.
A generational thing
University of New Hampshire sociology professor Murray Straus, the author of “Beating the Devil Out of Them,” has been studying corporal punishment since 1969 and says it comes as no surprise that almost every CEO was spanked. They mostly grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. Although the systematic use of corporal punishment has declined, 90 percent of toddlers still are spanked at least once, he says, and a 1998 Gallup Poll found that 55 percent of parents agreed with the statement “A good hard spanking is sometimes necessary.”
But Straus said evidence points to corporal punishment as detrimental. If some spanked children grow up to be successful, even billionaires, it’s like saying, go ahead and smoke because two-thirds of smokers don’t get lung cancer, he said.
Incidences of CEO spankings go well beyond anecdotal research. Re-tired General Electric CEO Jack Welch wrote in his 2001 memoir, “Jack: Straight from the Gut,” that his mother, Grace, was the family disciplinarian. When Welch skipped altar-boy practice, she whacked him with a shoe.
Eve Tahmincioglu interviewed 55 CEOs about their backgrounds for her book “From the Sandbox to the Corner Office: Lessons Learned on the Journey to the Top.” The book includes chapters about things such as how CEOs attacked their first jobs and how they overcame bad bosses, but chapter one is called “Parents: Less Carrot, More Stick.”
She found that most CEOs had tough disciplinarians as parents. Among those who told Tahmincioglu that they had been spanked were Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, Shell Chemicals Executive Vice President Fran Keeth, Alliant Energy Resources former CEO Erroll Davis, SCO Group CEO Darl McBride and United Way CEO Brian Gallagher.
Have you written/emailed your MP today yet?
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #125 — Press Release and audio track by Family Integrity
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/845783
Smacking may be beneficial
Oct 7, 2006
Lobby group Family First is taking heart from new research suggesting a
smack with an open hand does not harm children, or lead them to become
aggressive or antisocial.
The Dunedin multi-disciplinary study, which has tracked 1000 children
since 1972, found parents who were lightly smacked as children tend to
handle their own kids in much the same way.
Family First spokesman Bob McCoskrie says it is evidence the
anti-smacking bill should be dropped.
McCoskrie says the home-grown research shows a smack with an open hand
does not do harm and can even be beneficial.
McCoskrie says there is a huge difference between a light smack and
child abuse and most parents are aware of that.
Family Integrity # 124 – roughly 4 weeks to go: Section 59 – What can we be doing now?
Monday 2 October 2006
Greetings
Within FOUR weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. This must happen by 31 October 2006. The second reading of the Bill will occur sometime after that. Therefore time is running out. We all need to act now. Above all we must be much in prayer that God’s Will will be done. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Plus we need to see a public firestorm of protest to the MPs. So please let others know too. Here are some ways:
1. This is the response we received 27/9/06 for the questions “Can you please provide me with the total number of written submissions received on the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill? Can you please provide me with a breakdown of the number of submissions for and against the Bill?”
“The committee received a total of 1718 submissions on the bill. We have not prepared a breakdown for the committee of the numbers of submitters who support or oppose the bill and I am not able to provide that information.”
Cath Anyan, Clerk of Committee, Justice and Electoral Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Email:
cath.anyan@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: +64 4 471 9245, Fax: +64 4 473 0127, www.parliament.nz
We thought it would be important to have a break down on the numbers for and against the bill. Perhaps it is time for a writing campaign to challenge this committee to do their job properly and without bias, especially in light of the committee meeting 5 October.
2. It looks like the Select Committee will be meeting to begin formulating their recommendations on Bradford’s Bill to the MPs on THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing to our MPs. All MP contact details can be found at: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
3. Click on this link to see the Letters to the Listener Editor this week:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3465/letters/7156.html
and last week:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/letters/7097.html
(You can still write letters to the Listener Editor, via email,
letters@listener.co.nz or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address. Then turn those emails/letters into letters to the MPs)
4. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. Look particularly under the “Sweden” button http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/589946 to see what has been happening there. eg The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death – Chris Beckett and AN UNNECESSARY LAW – The Day, Editorial, November 11, 1978 plus more.
5. Email from Steve in Hamilton:
‘We will be having a special time of prayer to seek God’s purposes for this Bill. We will also be asking Him for wisdom (James 1:5) as He knows best what is good for His people. Please join us in praying for these things and the eternal salvation of those who are promoting this Bill. After all, what will it benefit anyone for eternity if all that happens is that we argue over this Bill. Let’s first and foremost use it as an opportunity to teach people that there is an eternal God who they will one day answer to for all they have done.”
Let us be praying constantly and fasting up until and including 5 October when this committee begin their meetings to discuss Repealing Section 59 for God’s Will to be done.
While we are praying for the Select Committe as they discuss their recommendations to the MPs regarding the repeal of Section 59 let us also be praying for the Case of the Seven Children that Ruby Harrold-Claesson spoke of so often while she was in New Zealand. Seven children were taken from their parents because the father “disturbed the peace” of his children in 2003. He spent one month in jail and the children were put into care – taken from the mother even though she was not involved. The father was found not guilty but the children were not returned. The family is in 4 different places at the moment. This is what Ruby said in an email to us today:
“I am quite bogged down with the case with the seven children. The case will be heard on Oct. 5.” Let us be in prayer for this family and for this case hearing on October 5.
6. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Please pray, be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
PS If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810. It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby. And read this article:
Should Reasonable Correction Of Children Be Illegal? – An Article About Michael Drake’s New Book
2. Buy these DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825
Advert for all three DVDs, Broadband users – (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users – (1 min 37 sec)
3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. e.g. Bradford’s “Creative” Use of Stats dial up – (2 min 12 Sec)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
and then read this article:
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm.
5. Listener Poll results:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
Should smacking be: 4% Outlawed in all circumstances, 96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason.
Family Integrity # 123 — roughly 5 weeks to go
27 September 2006
Greetings
Within FIVE weeks the Select Committee will report back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The second reading of the Bill will occur sometime after that. Therefore time is running out. We all need to act now. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Plus we need to see a public firestorm of protest to the MPs. So please let others know too. Here are some ways:
1. Have you seen www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz ‘s new DVDs on Section 59 yet? Take a look at this link either using Broadband or dial up:
Advert for all three DVDs, Broadband users – (1 min 37 sec)
Advert for all three DVDs, dial up users – (1 min 37 sec)
2. It looks like the Select Committee will be meeting to come up with their recommendations on Bradford’s Bill to the MPs on THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006. Therefore there is an urgency for us all to be writing to our MPs. For ease use this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
3. The result of the Listener Poll last week was
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
Should smacking be:
4% Outlawed in all circumstances
96% Permitted in some circumstances, within reason
Click on this link to see the Letters to the Listener Editor this week:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3464/letters/7097.html;jsessionid=3068FC987B4219A4C584BD4661CDFA97
(You can still write letters to the Listener Editor, via email, letters@listener.co.nz, or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address. Then turn those emails/letters into letters to the MPs)
4. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs.
5. If you have still not done any of the above then read this article:
http://www.nzcpd.com/weekly50.htm
This will also give you some good information for writing to your MPs. So go back to 1 above.
6. Dare I say if you still have not done anything then read this article:
Should Reasonable Correction Of Children Be Illegal? – An Article About Michael Drake’s New Book
7. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Bradford’s Bill must be stopped! Be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Craig and Barbara
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
PS If you have not read these or listened to these then please do so soon.
1. Read this online book and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810. It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby.
2. Buy these DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825
3. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the MPs. e.g. Bradford’s “Creative” Use of Stats dial up – (2 min 12 Sec)
http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/uploaded/Bradford_Bill-Bull_56k_dialup.wmv
4. If you have not already then read this article in last week’s Herald – “Parents should sit licence test, say experts.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922
| Newsletters # 113 – 122 |
Family Integrity # 122 — Section 59 – What can we be doing now?
Friday 22nd September 2006
Greetings
Within 6 weeks the Select Committee will have reported back to Parliament about Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Possibly soon after that will be the second reading of the Bill. Therefore time is running out. We all need to be acting now. We need to be informed and inform our MPs. Here are some ways:
1. Read this online book (just released) and pass it around: By Fear and Fallacy by Michael L Drake http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873810 It is a devastating critique of the entire repeal lobby.
2. Buy these DVDs and show them around: http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/873825 (might take a minute to load)
3. Vote in this weekly Listener poll** : http://www.listener.co.nz and read the articles in this week’s magazine. (Letters to the Editor are weclome, via email, letters@listener.co.nz, or post PO Box 90783, Auckland Mail Centre. Please remember to include your name and address.)
4. Write to the Editor of the Listener*** (see below for ideas) then turn that letter into one for your MP or all of the MPs using this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
5. If you have still not done any of the above then read this article in today’s Herald – “Parents should sit licence test, say experts.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10401922 Then go back and start at 1. again
6. http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the Editor. e.g. Bradford’s “Creative” Use of Stats dial up – (2 min 12 Sec) http://FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/uploaded/Bradford_Bill-Bull_56k_dialup.wmv
7. Pass this email around. Time is Short. Get the word out far and wide. Bradford’s Bill must be stopped! Be informed, and encouraged, and ACT NOW!
Blessings
Barbara www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
**This poll is relatively unscientific and should be treated as such. It is just indicative.
It will be quoted at various stages of s59 debate though so it would be good if you all voted in it.
***Just a bit further to this email. We were very happy with Joanne Black and what she wrote about us. She was constrained by her Editor who wanted more of the repeal side in the article.
Things that we think would be good to write to the Editor and your MPs about are:
Hands Off
1. page 15 Sue Bradford says “a child’s right to be free from violence…” Section 59 is against violence
2. page 17 Borrows this time “We don’t want to provide people with a recipe for beating their kids and getting away with it” Section 59 does not allow parents to beat their kids.
3. page 17 Sue Bradford talks of people giving submissions where they were beaten as children. Section 59 does not let people beat their children. It is against the law to beat children.
4. page 17 “Bradford, Borrows and Dunne are critical of aspects of the debate on the bill so far, especially from opposition Christian groups….” It has been the way the media has represented the Christian groups that has not been good.
5. page 19 Sue again “most people who have battered their kids, sometimes to death but more often so they are hospitalised…” Section 59 is no cover for this. This is abuse and homicide and there are laws against this.
6. page 19 Sue wanted to call this the anti-beating bill. Sue is wrong the media is right. It is an anti-smackiing bill and a bill to repeal parental authority. Beating is already against the law.
Page 16 – Zero Tolerance
7. Dr Dawn Elder – “abused children” – this is against the law already. Section 59 is about protecting abused children – Section 59 must be reasonable in the circumstances. Abusing children is not reasonable.
8. “Violence in Families” – Which families. Dysfunctional families, not good loving families who use force by way of correction to train their children. (See my oral submission on www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz )
9. “Child abuse cases, including fatalities” these are child abuse and homicide and are already against the law. This is not a controlled smack for training and correction.
10. “This punishment has in most cases been delivered by caregivers who have a problem controlling their anger.” This again is child abuse. When parents use force by way of correction and it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is not done in anger.
11.”verbal and physical violence” is child abuse and is against the law/
12. Elder again “Smacking is not an effective form of discipline”. It is very effective and quickly restores relationships.
13. Elder again “When it (smacking) is done in anger, which most people would admit it often is”. Only those who are abusing their children are doing it in anger. When smacking a child to correct and train it the parent is in perfect control.
14. “Putting children on an equal footing with……dogs” Is that how they see children. Dogs are trained, this bill will not allow for children to be trained. Children will be under the footing of dogs if they repeal Section 59.
15. Yes lets have zero tolerance to child abuse but let us train our children using reasonable force which is reasonable in the circumstances.
16.DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER
Elder wants to help parents who smack and wants to make sure that it does not happen again. WHICH MAY REQUIRE REMOVING CHILDREN FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR A WHILE,……
WE DON’T WANT SECTION 59 TO BE REPEALED. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND TO YOUR MPs asking them to keep section 59
I had better stop – there is more though look at “Death by Discipline” this is Child Abuse. This is nothing to do with Section 59.
Please write letters, emails, visit, txt, the Editor of Listener and your MPs.
Family Integrity # 121 — New DVDs
Dear Friends,
Family Integrity has produced three DVDs to fully inform you and your friends and family about the issues surrounding Bradford’s Bill to repeal our authority as parents by repealing Section 59.
The first has three parts: Renton Maclachlan exposes some of the lies and slander the media have promoted and makes a unique appeal using Lord of the Rings imagery to motivate us to get informed and involved. Then I explain the main issues around repeal of Section 59. Then there is an interview with Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson explaining the mess Sweden is in as a result of similar legislation there.
The second DVD is Ruby’s presentation of the sad facts surrounding the Swedish Experiment and how it has led to state abuse of families and children.
In the third DVD I get to square off with MPs Sue Bradford and Peter Dunne in a Forum held on the issue 28 August 2006 at Khandallah Presbyterian Church in Wellington. This one is a lot of fun! The thinking of each of us is more fully exposed for all to see.
Visit our website at www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz and view from the home page a couple of wee video clips, one advertising all 3 DVDs and the other showing Bradford’s creative use of stats.
Your purchase will help Family Integrity ensure each MP will get a copy of each and you can also use your DVDs to pass around your friends, relations, church congregation, etc. It is important that we move NOW because time is short: the Select Committee is due to report back to Parliament on this Bill by 31 October and the vote will be sometime after that.
Regards,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity # 120 — Ideas for Letter to Listener
Just a bit further to Family Integrity #119 about writing to the Listener editor. We were very happy with Joanne Black and what she wrote about us.
She was constrained by her Editor who wanted more of the repeal side in the article.
Things that we think would be good to write to the Editor about are:
Hands Off
1. page 15 Sue Bradford says “a child’s right to be free from violence…” Section 59 is against violence
2. page 17 Burrows this time “We don’t want to provide people with a recipe for beating their kids and getting away with it” Section 59 does not allow parents to beat their kids.
3. page 17 Sue Bradford talks of people giving submissions where they were beaten as children. Section 59 does not let people beat their children. It is against the law to beat children.
4. page 17 “Bradford, Borrows and Dunne are critical of aspects of the debate on the bill so far, especially from opposition Christian groups….” It has been the way the media has represented the Christian groups that has not been good.
5. page 19 Sue again “most people who have battered their kids, sometimes to death but more often so they are hospitalised…” Section 59 is no cover for this. This is abuse and there are laws against this.
6. page 19 Sue wanted to call this the anti-beating bill. Sue is wrong the media is right. It is an anti-smackiing bill and a bill to repeal parental authority. Beating is
already against the law.
Page 16 – Zero Tolerance
7. Dr Dawn Elder “abused children” this is against the law already. Section 59 is about protecting abused children – Section 59 must be reasonable in the circumstances. Abused children is not reasonable in the circumstances.
8. “Violence in Families” – Which families. Disfunctional families not good loving families who use force by way of correction to train their children. (See my oral submission on www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz)
9. “Child abuse cases, including fatalities” these are child abuse and are against the law. This is not a controlled smack for training and correction.
10. “This punishment has in most cases been delivered by caregivers who have a problem controlling their anger.” This again is child abuse. When parents use force by way of correction and it is reasonable in the circumstances then it is not done in anger.
11.”verbal and physical violence” is child abuse and is against the law/
12. Elder again “Smacking is not an effective form of discipline”. It is very effective and quickly restores relationships.
13. Elder again “When it (smacking) is done in anger, which most people would admit it often is”. Only those who are abusing their children are doing it in anger.
When smacking a child to correct and train it the parent is in perfect control.
14. “Putting children on an equal footing with……dogs” Is that how they see children. Dogs are trained, this bill will not allow for children to be trained. Children will be under the footing of dogs if they repeal Section 59.
15. Yes lets have zero tolerance to child abuse but let us train our children using reasonable force which is reasonable in the circumstances.
16.DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER
Elder wants to help parents who smack and wants to make sure that it does not happen again. WHICH MAY REQUIRE REMOVING CHILDREN FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR A WHILE,……
WE DON’T WANT SECTION 59 TO BE REPEALED. WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR AND TO YOUR MPs asking them to keep section 59
I had better stop there is more though look at “Death by Disciple” this is Child Abuse. This is nothing to do with Section 59.
Please write letters, emails, visit, txt, the Editor of Listener and your MPs.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity # 119 — Listener Article
Smacking is the subject for the front cover of the Listener this week.
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3463/7045.html
We’d like to suggest a strategy to kill a couple of birds with one stone.
Get a copy of the current Listener and read the articles. Write a letter to the Editor of the Listener, pointing out the many untruths in the articles. Section 59 is an excellent piece of legislation. When a child is beaten to death that is the ultimate abuse, it is not a form of discipline. One of the logical conclusions from the articles is to ban all discipline of children….which in fact repeal of Section 59 will effectively accomplish.
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz has a lot of good information to help with writing letters to the Editor.
After writing the letter to the Editor then turn it into a letter to the MPs and send it to all MPs
Using this link: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/page/588413
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #117 — Tribute
8 September 2006
Grab some tissues and read this incredible tribute to the late (Crocodile Hunter) Steve Irwin’s mum that Steve himself wrote.
Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59 says this woman was violent and should have been charged with criminal assault for ruining her child Steve with her violent and humiliating methods of discipline.
Steve’s mum was buried with many honours and many tears from grateful people. Steve will be buried in the same way.
Bradford’s Bill needs to be buried too….but for different reasons: it is totally detached from reality.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
This tribute can be found at:
http://www.australiazoo.com.au/australia_zoo/index.html
(Click “Lyn Irwin Memorial Fund” on index at left)
Way, way back in February of 1962 I was born right fair smack on my Mum’s
20th birthday. Crikey! A birthday present she’ll never forget. The umbilical
cord of our souls was never cut, to this very day I am connected to my Mum,
I cry for her now, I’ll cry for her forever.
I know pain, I’ve been busted up, smashed up, hospitalised. My body has been
traumatised and injured for over 40 years, but the pain of losing my Mum is
unbearable and relentless. There is no medication – just tears.
I am crying so hard writing this that the paper on which I write is
saturated. Oh God this hurts. My daughter Bindi came in one door as you went
out another. My son baby Bob will never know you – here is real, fair dinkum
pain.
You come to me in my dreams; your spirit is with every wedge tailed eagle; I
feel your breath in the westerly wind, but most of all I see your genes in
my princess Bindi and my baby boy Bob.
My Mum was killed in a car crash in the year 2000. She was the Mother
Theresa of wildlife, a saint, and she will be remembered forever.
I loved my Mum more than anything in the world. She nurtured, protected, and
loved me all my life. Lyn Irwin was a true “Australian Pioneer Woman”,
dedicating her entire life to the rehabilitation and conservation of both
the wildlife and her family. Every single day she worked and toiled to save
injured and orphaned joeys while maintaining a happy healthy Irwin clan.
Oh gosh! I miss you, Mum. I miss you every minute of every day, and the pain
of losing you tears my heart out. But I’ll stay strong; I promise you I’ll
stay strong – for it was you who taught me to be a “Wildlife Warrior”.
You worked with me for thirty-eight years to help me become the man I am
today. You suckled me, changed my nappy, packed me off to school, blessed me
with a career that is my whole life, cried with me when my pet snake died,
belted me with your shoe when I was really naughty, fought for me, protected
me, pushed me forward when the going got tough, and raised me to fight for
the preservation of wildlife until the day I die.
I’ve adopted your strength, your passion and enthusiasm, your dedication and
commitment, and will honour your presence by continuing to push forward as
hard and fast as I possibly can, to ensure the survival of our precious
wildlife, the wilderness, and in essence, the human race. For without fresh
water, trees, animals, and ecosystems, the world we know would not support
human life; it would be an ugly, awful place. The spirit of Lynette Leslie
Irwin, Lyn Irwin, my Mum, lives forever. Every time you see a sick, injured,
orphaned animal, you’ll see Lyn. I love you; I miss you, I long to be
reunited with you.
Family Integrity #116 — Unicef tells lies
Press Release sent 26 Aug 06.
UNICEF tells lies.
Lie No. 1: (The purpose of s59) is “Essentially, to exempt parents from retribution for assaults upon their children if they meet a standard of reasonableness.” What idiot would ever believe that the MPs who composed the Crimes Act in 1961 had that in mind? Facts: Section 59 recognises and acknowledges that parents have a duty and responsibility to correct their children and that such correction and discipline can require a reasonable use of force that should not be criminalised. Section 59 says the use of force is justified as long as two limiting factors are in place: the motivation must be “by way of correction” and the force used must be “reasonable in the circumstances”.
Lie No. 2: “What is ‘reasonable force’? It is whatever a judge or jury says it is.” This is really an implied lie: that “reasonable force” is something else, but UNICEF failed to reveal what they believe it is. Fact: In UNICEF’s ideology, reasonable force is no force at all. To them, any use of force, however light, is by definition violent abuse. (See UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 8, June 2006 at ). UNICEF wants to impose its extremist ideas by stealth on to every judge, jury and parent in the land from this day forward.
Lie No. 3: “Section 59 has very little to do with smacking and much to do with providing legal shelter for people who assault children in painful, dangerous and humiliating ways.” UNICEF again slurs the MPs of 1961 by accusing them of holding these repulsive motives. Fact: The MPs of 1961 were wiser than UNICEF for they understood that without Section 59, parents would commit criminal assault, according to the definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act, if they hug a child without the child’s permission, take the child by the hand to make it go with the parents, confine the child to its room for time out and countless other everyday acts of parenting. Section 59 is all about parental authority: repeal Section 59 and parents will lose legal recognition of their authority to correct or train or discipline their own children. The authority will pass to the state or to “professional” agents…such as UNICEF. They want your children.
Lie No. 4: “This archaic law has been used in New Zealand to protect adults who’ve beaten children with planks of wood and riding crops.” Facts: the repeal lobby can only ever use three or four cases in all of NZ legal history, none of which help their case at all unless they twist or leave out the details. Neither child in these two cases was beaten: they were smacked in a judicial and controlled manner. The plank of wood was 30x2cm, the size of a standard school ruler. The riding crop was applied with only two strokes, the child submitted voluntarily to the smacking, it restored family relationships and the school community could hardly believe the improvement in the boy’s behaviour. Section 59 is used as a defense less than two times per year in New Zealand, and most of the time, rather than hiding abuse, the caregiver is found to be guilty. Section 59 operates exactly as it should: nailing true abuse and protecting normal parents from charges of criminal assault for reasonable corrective action.
Lie No. 5: “The alarmist story that repeal of section 59 will ‘criminalise’ good parents has been shown by the sensible response of the police to have been the worst kind of scare-mongering.” Fact: the letter from Dr Jack of the Police Commissioner’s office of 11 August 2005 (described by current Police Commissioner Howard Broad as “accurate and authoritative”) declared simply that if Section 59 is repealed, “smacking of a child by way of corrective action would be an assault,” and “parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction.” There you have it plain and simple: even Sue Bradford’s “light smacks” are acts of assault and the use of reasonable force is unauthorised, outside the law, legally unjustified. Just as driving over 100 kph is a criminal activity, whether you are charged or not, so using any force, reasonable or not, will be a criminal activity. And being engaged in a criminal activity means you can be charged at any moment. Another letter from Joanna Bond, Legal Advisor to the Police Commissioner dated 11 July 2006, the one UNICEF is referring to as “the sensible response”, included extracts from the Police Manual of Best Practice wherein the first line reads: “The state has a duty to prosecute people who engage in criminal activity.” The letter assumes throughout that parents using force have committed a criminal act of assault and describes the way they will be investigated and the ways they may or may not be prosecuted.
Lie No. 6: “There will be no increase in convictions of parents if repeal goes ahead.” Fact: since the threshold for charging parents with criminal assault drops to zero-tolerance, there will have to be a rather large increase in investigations, prosecutions and convictions. Unless the Police cease to enforce the law. Or unless the Police pass all such matters over to CYFs who have the power to remove your children first and ask questions later. Once CYFs gets involved, life as you knew it comes to an end. And the real child abuse begins the moment any strange social worker enters your home and takes your child away from you merely because she believes “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child or young person is suffering, or is likely to suffer, ill-treatment, neglect, deprivation, abuse, or harm” (Section 39, Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989).
UNICEF and others resort to fabricating untruths because they are desperate to see Section 59 repealed. Why? Because it will destroy parental authority and allow these “child advocacy” groups greater and easier access to other people’s children. It will ensure that parents are shoved into a back-seat position so that these groups gain more prominence, more counselling contracts and more clients.
(Family Integrity Press Release above is based on this UNICEF release below.)
UNICEF NZ Issues S59 Challenge To City Councils
Friday, 25 August 2006, 3:41 pm
Press Release: UNICEF
MEDIA RELEASE
UNICEF NZ ISSUES CHALLENGE TO CITY COUNCILS
Yesterday (24.Aug. 2006) UNICEF New Zealand issued a challenge to every Mayor in New Zealand:
Lead the way and do what is right for New Zealand’s parents and children.
Support the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act.
David Kenkel, the UNICEF Advocacy Manager for New Zealand, said:
‘We are delighted that some City Councils have already acted so strongly to support the parents and children of New Zealand. We congratulate Porirua Council and Waitakere Council on their farsighted community leadership.
We have also just heard the fantastic news that New Zealand’s biggest council, Auckland City, have added their support by voting last night to support the repeal of Section 59. We have a great deal of respect for this council’s solid commitment to the principles and practices of care for children, in line with New Zealand’s obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).
It is wonderful to see Councils being so committed to the wellbeing of their communities. We want to thank these Councils on behalf of New Zealand’s children.
Now we are waiting to see what action will be taken by the other Mayors and Councils of New Zealand’.
ENDS
(The Email message that was sent out to New Zealand’s Mayors and Council CE’s follows as body of the Email)
SUBJECT LINE: UNICEF’ challenge to community leaders
This is an opportunity for local communities in New Zealand to lead the way
As you may know Porirua city council has already voted in support of the repeal of section 59 of the crimes act. Waitakere city council has issued a statement asserting their support for repeal.
Auckland city council is about to vote on the same issue.
Section 59 of the crimes act states:
‘Every parent of a child and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.’ (S59 Crimes Act 1961) What is the purpose of s59 of the Crimes Act 1961?
Essentially, to exempt parents from retribution for assaults upon their children if they meet a standard of reasonableness.
What is ‘reasonable force’?
It is whatever a judge or jury says it is.
Section 59 has very little to with smacking and much to do with providing legal shelter for people who assault children in painful, dangerous and humiliating ways.
This archaic law has been used in New Zealand to protect adults who’ve beaten children with planks of wood and riding crops.
International and New Zealand research on children and discipline show that striking children does no good and can do much harm. Hitting children is demonstrated to be the least effective form of discipline and the vast majority of parents who are honest and brave enough to talk about it admit that when they have hit their children it is more to do with frustration, desperation and anger than anything reasonable.
New Zealand needs to be committed to its parents and recognise that parenting is one of the hardest jobs of all. Being a good parent doesn’t mean being perfect, but it should mean aiming to do what works rather than justifying and excusing what doesn’t work. This law doesn’t help New Zealand parents or New Zealand children. It sanctions what’s worst rather than encouraging what’s best.
The alarmist story that repeal of section 59 will ‘criminalise’ good parents has been shown by the sensible response of the police to have been the worst kind of scare-mongering. There will be no increase in convictions of parents if repeal goes ahead.
What will change is that we as a nation will do a better job of facing up to what we need to do better.
We at UNICEF New Zealand ask you as community leaders to do what’s best for New Zealand’s parents and children. Support repeal of Section 59 and send a clear message to parliament to do the same.
Family Integrity #115 — Children’s Commissioner Fibs
Dear Friends,
What do you make of this?
Thursday 25 May 2006 was the first sitting of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee to consider submissions on MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59. Ten submitters presented talks, all for the Bill.
The final presenter was the Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro. One of the Committee members pointed out to her that the letter from Dr Jack of the Office of the Police Commissioner (Rob Robinson at the time) of 11 August 2005 to Family Integrity made it clear that any smacking would be an assault. Kiro then said she contacted the Police Commissioner (she didn’t say when or which of the three men who’ve held the Commissioner’s position in the past year) who said he hadn’t “signed the letter off” and that he wasn’t happy about it. This prompted Committee member Ann Hartley to exclaim, “Oh, I didn’t know that letter was unauthorised.”
I wrote to the new Police Commissioner, Howard Broad, on 22 August 2006 and asked if he considered the letter of 11 August 2005 to be accurate and authoritative. His reply to me dated 23 August said, “I have reviewed the letter sent to you by Mr Jack on 11 August 2005 and his advice is both accurate and authoritative.”
In my book, when someone says something to deliberately create a false impression, it is known as telling a lie. It is a direct violation of the 9th Commandment (You shall not bear false witness – Exodus 20:16). That a false impression was given was remarkably well confirmed and enunciated on the spot by Labour MP Ann Hartley (“Oh, I didn’t know that letter was unauthorised”).
If the Commissioner had a case for repealing Section 59, you wouldn’t expect she’d feel the need to stoop to such tactics.
Attached is all the correspondence.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #114 — Press release re EPOCH
25 August 2006
Press Release
For Immediate Distribution
EPOCH NZ said yesterday (in their press release below) they are greatly reassured by the Police Commissioner’s latest statement as to how the Police would respond to parents using even minor physical punishment with their children should Section 59 ever be repealed. The Police confirmed that even minor physical punishment would be worthy of an investigation for assault. The Police Commissioner wrote to Family Integrity last year to say not only light physical punishment but any form of force by way of correction would not be authorised by law.
EPOCH said the same in their own newsletter of July 2005: “If section 59 is repealed, parents could be charged with assault if using any force for the purposes of correction.” Please note: a charge of criminal assault can arise from the use of “any” force, not just “minor physical punishment”.
So EPOCH have confirmed again a parent’s nightmare: that any form of force by parents toward their children for correction, training or discipline would be a criminal act of assault, not only worthy of a police investigation with all its attendant stress and trauma on the children, the marriage and the family, but possibly worth as much as two years in jail according to Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.
Time out or carrying an objecting child to bed or making a child eat something specific or change out of certain clothing or holding a hand to make the child go with you will all become criminal acts of assault. This is certain and undeniable, given the definition of assault from Section 2 of the Crimes Act. And after all, if a stranger could not use even reasonable force to do any of these to your child, you will not be allowed to use force to do any of these to your own child either, precisely as Sue Bradford intends according to her Explanatory Note in the Bill itself.
EPOCH are greatly reassured because the Police have confirmed they will not go lightly on parents who would dare to discipline their own children. Repeal of Section 59 will be disastrous for New Zealand families.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity #113 — EPOCH’s press release today
Dear Friends,
Well done to all who have appeared before the Select Committee about this Bill! To those who are appearing this Monday 28 August, here are some tips: Stick with what you know for sure and are convinced and passionate about. It sounds to me like an awful lot of people are going to be asked to make their submissions on that day and I would fully expect to be lumped in with several other people and your “group” given 20 minutes to speak. The first in the group will most likely take the longest and the rest will be given the hurry along, shaving your individual time to 2 or 3 minutes. We’ve seen it done at the Hamilton venue and people in Auckland said the same happened there. Barbara and I each have individual presentations to make that very morning of the 28th of August and have been told we each have 10 minutes. So we’ll have 10 minute and 3 minutes versions ready to go.
I think what is really needed right now is non-stop pressure on MPs from hundreds of concerned parents against this bill. EPOCH came out with a piece of propaganda on SCOOP and in the Herald today (24 August) saying the Police have said things which should assure parents they won’t be charged willy nilly. The police have said nothing of the sort. Smacking and time out and hugging (a form of discipline the opposition favor second after time out) and carrying to bed and making a child eat this or change that piece of clothing or apologise to a neighbour for breaking the window and making the child pay for it will all become criminal acts of assault. (If you cannot use “force” to make an adult do any of these things, you cannot use force on your child to make him or her do it.) This is certain and undeniable, given the definition of “assault” from Section 2 of the Crimes Act (see below). These actions will become chargeable offenses. Whether they will be charged is another issue. It depends upon how they come to the notice of the Police. Far more than we’d care to think about will be investigated, with all the attendant stress on marriages, families, children, etc. In addition, a growing number will go on to court cases since, if Section 59 is ever repealed, and there is NO LEGAL DEFENSE for any act of physical discipline, the police will be under increasing pressure to uphold the law by those whose agenda is to wipe physical discipline off the land. Below are some excerpts from a June 2006 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the group who polices the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) which show they equate physical discipline, however light, with violence and abuse. This is where the pro-repeal lobby gets its rhetoric, so you can see where this is going…..please note that in paragraphs 31 & 34 quoted below, it is clear that they equate corporal chastisement, corporal disciplne, reasonable correction, etc., with corporal punishment, “however light”, which is condemned as violence and abuse by definition (their definition) and therefore must be legislated against.
Parental authority is being attacked here. If they can wrench Section 59, which is titled “Domestic Discipline”, from the law, parents will be unauthorised by law to discipline in any physical way whatsoever. Again, this is undeniable fact. The letter to me from the Police Commissioner last year confirmed that and this recent communication with EPOCH changes none of that. If parents are unauthorised to use any kind of physical discipline, who then can? Agents of the state can, in particular police and social workers and whomever they appoint, such as Barnardos and Plunket and the Children’s Commissioner, etc.
This is very serious indeed. Please write to your MP at least once a week until the second reading.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
1. From Section 2, NZ Crimes Act:
“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.”
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Excerpts from General Comment No. 8, June 2006 (http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo)
1.This General Comment focuses on corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, which are currently very widely accepted and practiced forms of violence against children.
8.The Committee called upon States to “enact or repeal, as a matter of urgency, their legislation in order to prohibit all forms of violence, however light, within the family and in schools, including as a form of discipline, as required by the provisions of the Convention.”
11.The Committee defines “corporal” or “physical” punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (”smacking”, “slapping”, “spanking”) children, with the hand or with an implement.
20.Article 19 and Article 28(2) do not refer explicitly to corporal punishment. The travaux preparatoires for the Convention do not record any discussion of corporal punishment during the drafting sessions. But the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time.
29.Some raise faith-based justifications for corporal punishment, suggesting that certain interpretations of religious texts not only justify its use, but provide a duty to use it….Freedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
31.The Committee emphasizes that the Convention requires the removal of any provisions (in statute or common – case – law) which allow some degree of violence against children (e.g. “reasonable” or “moderate” chastisement or correction), in their homes/families or in any other setting.
34.In addition, explicit prohibition of corporal punishment…is required in order to make it absolutely clear that it is as unlawful to hit or “smack” or “spank” a child as to do so to an adult, and that the criminal law on assault does apply equally to such violence, regardless of whether it is termed discipline or “reasonable correction”.
39.But it should be made explicitly clear that the criminal law provisions on assault also cover all coporal punishment, including in the family.
43.It is essential that the prohibition of all corporal punishment…and the sanctions that may be imposed if it is inflicted, should be well disseminated to children and to all those working with or for children in all settings
| Newsletters # 109 – 112 |
Family Integrity #109 — Ruby’s Tour 1
Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson arrived in NZ on July 19 just after 5am after 36 hours of travel. TV 1 & TV 3 were scrapping over who would have her first, one spitting the dummy and saying they wouldn’t have her at all. They both had appointments with her on the 20th, but ended up filming her on the 19th, same day she arrived, after she also did three other media interviews.
Some elements of the media decided to use July 19 to fabricate a story about a pamphlet I wrote two years ago, saying it promoted smacking children for 10 to 15 minutes. What the pamphlet actually said was parents should take 10 to 15 minutes to determine if a smack is even necessary. (It’s on our website at www.familyintegrity.org.nz ….click “Christian Corporal Correction”). The fabrication has travelled to many countries, and I received phone calls from Australia and the USA wanting to know more.
Ruby had more media interviews on Thursday and Friday, 20-21 July, then flew to Wellington on Saturday. That night in Upper Hutt was the first of five public meetings, the second one being in Porirua Monday. Also on Monday Anna Chalmers of the Dominion Post cancelled the interview she’d arranged. She rang back Wednesday afternoon wanting an interview. She knew we would be leaving for the airport at that time and asked a series of dumb questions, so Ruby just cut her off. Anna and the DomPost were abominable throughout, leading the others in twisting the facts and digging up truly unqualified people in Sweden who were happy to say that Ruby was unqualified. The fact is, Ruby’s mastery of four languages, her knowledge of law in France, Sweden and European law put her way out in front of most other Swedish lawyers. Incidentally, Swedish universities have recently ruled that a person must be employed by the University, on its payroll, in order to gain their PhD at that university…..so much for academic freedom!
Tuesday 25 July Ruby met with the Family Commissioner, Rajen Prasad and with Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro. Both are totally fixated on repealing section 59 and would not entertain any notion that drugs, alcohol, TV violence, the abortion industry or school bullying were more urgent issues to pursue in order to really deal with domestic violence. She met with 14 MPs that evening.
Wednesday we did a lot of filming for a DVD featuring a lengthy interview with Ruby that will be available shortly. Flew to Hamilton and Ruby appeared before the Select Committee there on Thursday 27 July. Again, the DomPost fabricated a story about a large police and security guard presence due to a tip-off of potential violence plus demonstrators clapping and stomping feet at Sue Bradford. Well, we were there, Anna Chalmers wasn’t. There were no police present and the only clapping (no foot stomping) was spontaneous applause on two or three occasions when the individual submitter’s presentation against Bradford’s Bill was exceptionally impressive. There was also a group of seven 12 & 13 year-old school girls who each wanted to keep Section 59, saying they knew their parents loved them when they smacked them, only they suggested amendments to rule out smacking in certain places.
There was a public meeting in Hamilton, one in South Auckland and another on the North Shore. Ruby also met with Pacific Island leaders and the Auckland District Law Society. Before she flew out of NZ on Tuesday 1 August, Ruby also took in some NZ Culture at Rotorua’s Tamaki Village and also got to see live Kiwi, Tuatara, Wood Pigeons, Tui, Kea and other critters, plants and geothermal activity.
Ruby totally loved her time here and constantly talked of coming back with her husband Håkan (pronounced hoe-can). We found Ruby so gracious, polite and unassuming that her many talents and specialist knowledge came out gradually over her time here and not all at once at the beginning. She is thoroughly delightful and New Zealand can be glad that someone with her total and fearless commitment to justice and truth came here to lift the cover on the official whitewash about the Swedish situation that has fooled us all for so long.
Family Integrity #110 — Ruby’s Tour 2
Greetings all,
Barbara and I just finished touring parts of NZ with Jamaican-born Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson. It has been a real education. We have gained quite an insight into the Swedish psyche and the way that particular society expects its members to behave.
One of the silly arguments advanced by the repeal lobby is that children should be given the same rights as adults. They obviously don’t mean what they say, for they are not suggesting children be allowed to vote, sign contracts, smoke or drink. Well, Swedish society has gone down this track of extending more and more “rights” to children and has been forced to become extremely tolerant of childish behaviour to the point of what most of us would call irresponsible indulgence: rudeness, disrespect, disobedience and more are allowed to go unchecked except for some verbal admonition.
We have also learned how intolerant Swedish officialdom is toward those who would criticise the system. Sweden has for many years now prided itself on being the world leader in progressive social experiments: free sexual expression of the 1960s, increasing socialised benefits over several decades (resulting in Sweden being the most highly taxed nation on earth), the world’s first legal ban on smacking, etc. So when people such as Ruby, being an outsider of sorts, makes it her habit to dispassionately and more objectively observe and report on what goes on there in a negative light, officials at almost every level close ranks to defend their international reputation.
Same thing happens here in Kiwiland, we’ve found. When someone like Ruby comes over here and not only shatters a favoured myth about conditions in Sweden held by the ruling liberal elite (from Helen Clark downwards) but also shows how loosely and “creatively” this elite handles the truth, they take shots at the messenger from Sweden rather than listen to the message from someone who obviously knows better than they simply because they don’t like the message…..it doesn’t support their agenda.
The political machinations the opposition has shown us as a result of Ruby’s visit here are very instructive: the one-eyed commitment of the present political elite in New Zealand to the repeal of Section 59 is so strong, we must conclude they have a larger agenda in mind. They have said time and again that repeal of Section 59 is only a small step and only a first step in a larger strategy to supposedly eliminate child abuse. While we all applaud moves to eliminate child abuse, it is false logic to say repealing Section 59 (which embodies parental authorisation to use “reasonable force by way of correction”) is a step in this direction: “reasonable force” is clearly not abuse. Children who go uncorrected will bring harm and angst to themselves and others. Such children will become targets for both frustrated parents and officialdom who will be called upon to sort them out, using force, since the parents cannot legally do so. And we all know that if CYFs gets involved in a family, life as that family knew it comes to an end. The resultant abuse to the family’s integrity – the child removed to a foster home and the parents charged with criminal assault – such legal, institutionalised abuse is far, far worse than any use of “reasonable force by way of correction”.
Helen Clark, Sue Bradford and others have held Sweden up as an example of social structure for us to copy. They have not exposed the full story: Sweden is a Socialist dictatorship. The Social Democrats have been in power for 50 years. The populace do as they’re told. Opposition is suppressed and even various expressions of difference are marginalized. State experts are assumed to be right, and because children are assumed to belong to the state, natural parents are not trusted as much as foster parents, the latter being well-paid agents of the state.
The Swedish state wants a certain outcome in its society. Just like in a chemistry laboratory, to get the desired results, you must control all the variables. So Swedish authorities are working to control all the social variables in order to get a peaceful and harmonious society. New Zealand’s political leaders have been doing the same thing over recent years. They see repeal of Section 59 as absolutely key since this one little clause in the law is what gives parents legal recognition that they, and not the state, have primary authority over their children.
The sodomite lobby has also said that they see repeal of Section 59 as key, for if parents will not fight to retain their authority over their own children, neither will they fight homosexual marriage and adoptions, hate speech legislation, de-criminalising other sexual perversions.
Specific Fibs
Let me clear up some of the criticisms the pro-repeal lobbyists have refused to clarify, no matter how many times we told them. Ruby is not a member of the Swedish Bar Association. Hundreds of Swedish lawyers do not belong to the Bar…it is not a requirement to practise law in Sweden. Ruby has never applied to join the Bar. In addition, one must also have a certain high level of income to join. Ruby does a lot of work for free. She is owed a lot of money by the provincial court of western Sweden for legal aid work she has done. But when she took a holiday to Jamaica in 1996 and criticised the Swedish system on Jamaican television, she returned home to Sweden to a local work ban: her home provincial court system refused to appoint her as legal aid lawyer, saying she was an “inappropriate” (not an incompetent) lawyer. They also refused to pay for the legal aid work she had been doing for some time up til then. She is free to represent clients in western Sweden otherwise and there is no work ban in the rest of Sweden.
Bradford tries to say repeal of Section 59 will stop violence against children the way repeal of similar legislation in Sweden back in 1957 reduced child deaths at the hands of their parents to “one every four years”. Ruby claimed that such deaths happen at the average rate of seven a year and have done since at least 1966. When we visited Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro with Ruby, Dr Kiro confirmed that Ruby’s figures were correct and Bradford’s were not. “In Sweden, many people believe that children have not been subjected to violence since the ban on corporal punishment was introduced, but this is not true,” said Sweden’s Children’s Ombudsman, Lena Nyberg, in an article in Sweden’s The Local dated 5 May 2006 titled “New Child Abuse Commission after Bobby Death”. In the same article Morgan Johansson, Sweden’s public health minister, said, “Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years.” So it is actually worse than Ruby was saying.
Some Swedish expert, a psychologist, was interviewed on NZ radio recently and said that since 1957, when Sweden’s equivalent of our Section 59 was repealed, only one parent had been charged with the crime of smacking. It has also been pointed out, by Ruby whenever she speaks, that the 1979 ban on smacking was in Sweden’s civil code and did not carry any penalties or legal sanctions. And so it is not even possible to bring such charges to courts. But what the media fail to point out or fail to understand is that with such laws in place, parents are then exposed to being charged with assault and battery under various criminal codes. This is precisely what happens. Ruby tabled 41 cases, copies of official rulings against parents in Swedish courts, at her hearing before the select committee. The psychologist is not a lawyer….which perhaps explains why he knows little about what actually goes on in Swedish courtrooms. In addition, Ruby has practised Swedish lawyer for 20 years.
Here is a quick outline of the legal history. The equivalent of Section 59, giving parents a defense from a charge of criminal assault against their children of having used reasonable force by way of correction, was repealed in Sweden in 1957. In 1966 they changed a law which said parents must curb their children to read parents must correct their children. In 1979 a law was added to the civil (not the penal) code banning smacking and any belittling treatment of children. In 1998 a law was introduced making gross disturbance of the peace a crime. Under this law parents have been charged and children removed for a non-specific accusation that the parents had hassled the children or imposed their will on the child at some unspecified date and time in the past in a way unwanted by the child.
The cumulative effect of these laws is that many parents are afraid to correct their children in any way. Children are coached in preschool onwards that they do not have to put up with any discipline from their parents but only need to report them to a teacher, social worker or police to make the parents stop. (What the children are not coached in are the implications to their family’s integrity and relationships of making such a report…more on this later.) To give a child “time out” is a crime for the child may suffer mental and emotional stress, and it is a form of physical punishment since the child is separated from the physical presence of his family. Of course when the authorities separate a child physically from his family for weeks and months at a time and place the child with total strangers, that is not seen as abuse but as protection. You must apologise to a child for disturbing his peace, lest you be charged with this crime, when you drag the child from in front of a truck on the road or when prying a huge kitchen knife from his hands.
There has developed a thinking within the Swedish social services that most parents are near-incompetents and can hardly be trusted. This is evidenced by the number of children taken into care: over 20,000 in a country of 9 million, a rate 4 times higher than New Zealand. To mind all these children, an army of over 300,000 social workers has arisen plus thousands of foster homes. These can be either obvious institutions or private homes, but all are well-paid. Qualifications are very low, just like New Zealand’s cases of foster children being placed in gang headquarters and brothels. According to Ruby, these foster agents are rarely investigated for abuse they commit against their charges. This is due to the Swedish sense of self-righteousness: the state system is best, it is at the apex of human social development….it can do no wrong. New Zealand’s social welfare system also suffers from this blindness: when they get it wrong, they are loathe to admit it or correct it for such admissions of error damage their professional credibility.
This kind of administrative and institutionalised child abuse is the worst part of this whole anti-smacking scenario: it gives power into the hands of strangers to the children who not only have no personal care for the children, but stand to gain materially from interfering in their lives. Since parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force to correct, train or discipline their children if Section 59 is repealed, its repeal dramatically lowers the threshold at which social workers can justify intervening into private family affairs. Ruby says fostering is big business: it keeps the social workers in green as well as foster agencies, lawyers and psychiatrists. Each of these groups has a financial interest in seeing the problem expand, not decrease. And once a child has been in care for three years, the state may rule that it be forcibly adopted out.
Family Integrity #111 — Forum with Bradford/Dunne/Smith
Khandallah Presbyterian Church is holding a Forum on the proposed amendments to Section 59 of the Crimes Act, now commonly referred to as “anti-smacking legislation”. I confirm that the date for the Forum is Monday, 28th August 2006 at Khandallah Presbyterian Church, 33 Ganges Road, Khandallah (opposite New World Supermarket) starting at 7.30pm. It is a public Forum, with entry free to all people who wish to attend, and it will be recorded for broadcast on Radio New Zealand, on the programme “Spiritual Outlook” at 5.00pm on Sunday, 17th September 2006.
I propose that the format for the Forum be as follows:
Sue Bradford, Green Party, who has proposed the amendment in Parliament, be invited to speak first, followed by Craig Smith of the Home Education Foundation, representing Family Integrity, and finally Peter Dunne, our local MP and member of the government. Each speaker will be invited to put forward their position regarding the proposed legislation in a speech of up to seven minutes, following which members of the audience will be invited to ask brief and pertinent questions of any or all of the speakers. The Forum will be chaired by Dr Maureen Garing, host of the “Spiritual Outlook” programme and Session Clerk of Khandallah Presbyterian Church.
It is my hope that the evening will give the speakers the opportunity to present to the public their respective positions regarding this sensitive and significant legislation in a full and fair way. I am deeply appreciative of their willingness to participate in this Forum.
Reverend Fraser Paterson
Minister, Khandallah Presbyterian Church.
kpchurch@xtra.co.nz
Family Integrity #112 — Sodomite agenda link to Section 59
You may remember the statement by the New Zealand sodomites saying how they see the repeal of Section 59 as a test for how much opposition they will get when they start pushing their agenda more vigorously (I’ve reproduced the statement below the following article). Here is an alert from the USA revealing what the sodomite agenda is there. We can expect all this and more here if we lie down and let Section 59 go without a fight. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said this kind of battle is raging all over the world. Britain fought it to a bit of a stalemate with an amendment which didn’t clarify but only muddied the waters. Canada managed to keep their equivalent to Section 59 (which has almost identical wording). So what happens here in NZ is being watched keenly by activists all over the globe. Please write your MP to keep Section 59 intact and not pass Bradford’s Bill to repeal it and get your friends and neighbours to do the same.
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
Our Home….Our Castle
August 14, 2006
Democrats help block marriage protection amendment
Party goes on record in support of homosexual marriage
Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage . They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy.
Activists say that marriage is “not the only worthy form of family or relationship,” and it “should not be legally or economically privileged above others.” The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.
Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)” and “queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households.” The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.
The Democratic National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal . DNC spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort by the Democrats occurred in Illinois where the Democrats donated $10,000 to help the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
GayNZ.com
Comment: Section 59: A Social Conservative Retreat?
25FEB06 – Craig Young
Have LGBT community efforts led to a considerablely weakened Christian Right effort
against Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Repeal Bill? What does this have to do with us, one might
ask.
Lesbian feminists have had longstanding involvements within the child protection profession.
Added to which, this particular political initiative is the first real test of opposition to the
Christian Right during this political term, and will disclose what condition they might be in
for later reform initiatives, like transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws and adoption
reform legislation. It has strategic significance to us.
With the Bradford Bill, the Christian Right is facing one of its worst nightmares. What do
they do when professional opinion is heavily stacked in favour of repeal legislation? Simply,
the answer is: what Christian Right? Family Integrity, Christian News, Garnet Milne and
SPCS are plugging away there still, but there are severe constraints on the opposition. The
Maxim Institute put together an anemic looking brief guide to the private members bill in
question, without even providing background information, or links to anti-repeal websites.
Conservative Catholics are nowhere to be seen, preferring to prioritise their anti-euthanasia
activities.Moreover, there are geographical limitations. Family Integrity/Christian News are based in
Palmerston North, while Garnet Milne squats malignantly in Wanganui, as minister of the
Reformed Fellowship of that provincial city, and opposition seems website-based and virtual.
Unlike the Civil Union Act debate, there have been no public meetings, no anti-repeal
petitions, or even widespread distribution of anti-repeal propaganda.
If there is a public presence, it belongs to the children’s health and welfare groups that
dominate the debate. They have distributed pro-repeal brochures, and and have attracted
support from the Body Shop, now distributing a pro-repeal petition.
Bluntly, the Christian Right response has been pathetic. Because they lack anyone credible
with experience in pediatrics or developmental psychology, there has been resort to
predictable populist attacks on pro-repeal medical professionals as members of a sinister
‘elite’ opposed to ‘traditional families,’ who are attacking the parental ‘right’ to belt kids.
Again, this is significant to us. Pediatric and child development specialists will also be
relevant to LGBT debates around adoption law reform, when our time finally arrrives. Then
there’s the inevitable conspiratorial approach, in which an unrepresentative group of ‘activists’ has seized control of pro-repeal child health and welfare groups. No, pro-repeal child health and welfare groups are basing their case on coalface professional practice, and evidencebased research derived from that practice.
No matter, National’s so-called ‘family’ spokesperson, Judith Collins, is once again pandering
to the fundamentalist lobby over this issue. “Parenting is not an academic issue,” she whines.
Sue Bradford and Ruth Dyson replied that if she wasn’t going to listen to professional prorepeal
opinion, then what did she base her opinions on? One can only hope that John Key
abolishes this ridiculous shadow portfolio when he takes over as Leader of the Opposition, if
all Collins will ever do is listen to unrepresentative social conservative lobby groups, and
ignore evidence and practice-based professional research on family policy issues. Including
ours.
I still predict that the Christian Right will lose this one. There’s nothing like the opposition
that existed to either the decriminalisation of sex work or LGBT relationship recognition.
And if it works for Section 59 Repeal, then what about Georgina’s transgender protection bill,
and eventual inclusive adoption law reform?
Given this bill’s importance as an index of the strength of the Christian Right, I recommend
that there is an influx of LGBT supporters who support Bradford and reform proponents
throughout this process. Write submissions and support her bill.
Recommended:
www.greens.org.nz
If you want to help Sue Bradford’s repeal efforts, email her at: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.
nz
Not Recommended:
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
www.christiannews.co.nz
www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
www.section59.com
www.spcs.org.nz
ENDS
GayNZ.com
http://www.gaynz.com/
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1206&print=yes (2 of 2)6/1/2006 2:36:31 PM
| Newsletters # 98a – 107 |
Family Integrity #107 — Swedish Lawyer condemns anti-smacking legislation
Public Meetings with Ruby Harrold-Claesson – Swedish Lawyer:
22 July: 7:30pm – Public Meeting – Upper Hutt
venue: Reformed Church of Silverstream, 8 Blue Mountains Road, Silverstream, Upper Hutt
contact: Jos (04) 971-9187, landkroon@paradise.net.nz
24 July: 7:30pm – Public Meeting – Porirua,Wellington
Venue: Hosanna Fellowship, cnr Warspite Ave and Driver Cres, Porirua.
contact: Renton Phone (04) 237-8481 or 021 069 4492, clearsight@xtra.co.nz
27 July: 7:00-9:00pm – Public Meeting – Hamilton
venue: Celebrating Age Centre, 30 Victoria Street, Hamilton
contact: Jim (07) 847-7955, swkloeg@hnpl.net
29 July: 7:30pm – Public Meeting – South Auckland
venue: Guides Manukau Centre, 68 Everglade Drive, Manukau City
contact: Paul and Brenda (09) 266-5389, hill.billies@paradise.net.nz
31 July: 7:30pm – Public Meeting – North Shore Auckland
venue: Birkenhead Primary, 77 Mokoia Rd, Birkenhead, Auckland
contact: Mark (09) 410-3933, cesbooks@intouch.co.nz
Ruby Harrold-Claesson – Swedish Lawyer – being brought to NZ by Coalition Section 59
Ruby Harrold-Claesson runs a private law firm in Gothenburg. She works with family law, e.g. guardianship cases and cases dealing with parental rights, criminal cases etc. Ruby Harrold-Claesson has referred several cases of breaches of Human Rights to the European Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Ruby defends families in Sweden who are being prosecuted and who are having their children taken from them under the Swedish no-smacking legislation. Ruby says the destruction of families in Sweden is horrendous.
“It has ruined families and ruined children. The children in Sweden are incredibly badly behaved. They have no discipline at home and no discipline in schools. I have seen a child kick his father repeatedly and all that man could say was ‘you shouldn’t do that’. I’ve dealt with cases where parents are so frightened of imposing any form of discipline that they have given up all responsibility; they say ‘I can’t stop my child running around at night, so if something happens to them it’s not my fault’. As far as I’m concerned parents are adults, and adults decide what is a reasonable level of discipline. By taking away their ability to do that, you breed a new generation of wild, ill-disciplined Vikings – and that is what we have here. We in the Nordic Committee of Human Rights are completely against child abuse. We say this law is unnecessary because there has always been a law to punish child abuse – assault and battery. This law saying a parent should not smack their child goes beyond all rhyme and reason.”
She has founded and chairs the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, http://www.nkmr.org/english/index.htm
She is coming to NZ to testify before the NZ Select Committee. Ruby is being brought out by Coalition Section 59, a group of over 200 concerned Community and Lobby groups and families, including Family Integrity, Society for Promotion of Community Standards, Family First Lobby, Sensible Sentencing Trust, NZ Centre for Political Debate, For the Sake of our Children Trust, PANIC, s59.org and others.
Ruby will be in New Zealand from Wednesday 19th July until Monday 1st August.
For Ruby’s programme please visit:
Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s Public engagements (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292
Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s full schedule (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/846694
We plan to make a high quality DVD of Ruby’s time in New Zealand. Her two meetings in the Wellington area will be videoed plus there will be fireside interviews with Ruby. We will be selling this DVD for $10.00. We also plan to give each MP a copy of the DVD.
Don’t forget to vote in these 4 polls:
http://www.stuff.co.nz
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/
http://www.tvnz.co.nz/view/page/
http://kf8.pollhost.com
Please pass this email around to all your friends, family and relations. We need to get the word out about what is happening in Sweden from someone who lives there and has lots of contact with families having trouble with the Social Welfare system because they have used reasonable force with their children by way of correction.
Regards
Craig and Barbara Smith
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
on behalf of Coalition Section 59
Family Integrity #106 – Swedish lawyer’s schedule in NZ
Dear Friends
We are rejoicing at the fantastic response to the appeal for funds for Ruby Harrold-Claesson to come to New Zealand to speak to MPs, Media and NGOs.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson will be arriving in New Zealand July 19 and returning to Sweden August 1.
We decided that we needed to get experts on the job for this so asked Bob McCoskrie from Family First www.familyfirst.org.nz and David Lane from the Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. www.spcs.org.nz to help us make the most of Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s time in New Zealand. Bob’s strength is Media lobbying and David’s strength is MP lobbying. So we formed the s59 Coalition which also includes the Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz), PANIC (www.panic.org.nz), New Zealand Centre for Political Debate (www.nzcpd.com) and http://Section59.org. They are doing a great job. You can keep up to date with what we are doing by visiting these two pages:
Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s Public engagements (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/844292
Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s full schedule (so far): http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz/page/846694
We think that the best use of Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s time while in New Zealand is to meet with the Media, as many MPs as possible and as many NGO’s as possible. Thank you to all those who have made offers to host her in your town and in your home. Sadly we won’t be able to take up most of your offers. We will mainly be centered in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington. The above pages for Ruby’s public engagements and full schedule are all the confirmed activities; there are many more still to be confirmed.
The s59 Coalition will be continuing to lobby MPs after Mrs Ruby Harrold-Claesson leaves New Zealand. We would also like to visit as many places around New Zealand as we can (sometimes with others) to encourage people to:
1. Pray for God’s will to be done
2. Encourage people to write to their MPs
3. Encourage people to visit their MPs
4. Run workshops on training parents in the Biblical Discipline of their children.
5. Continue to raise funds for the fight to keep s59 of the Crimes act in place and unchanged. We have contracted Ed Rademaker for 30 hours a week to help with this and need to raise the funds to pay him $12.00 per hour..
We would like to keep the momentum up in the Media and with the MPs right through until the Second Reading of the Crimes Act, which could be in November this year. If you have any ideas, we would love to hear from you. Are you doing anything special that others could be doing? Then please let us know so that we can pass it on. Please continue to pray that Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) will not be repealed or altered in any way. We thank you again for your generous contribution.
(If the internet links above are ot working, copy and paste them into your internet browser.)
Regards
Craig and Barbara Smith
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Family Integrity #105 – The source of the rhetoric
The Bill to repeal Section 59’s author, MP Sue Bradford and Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro get their rhetoric from extremist pronouncements of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 requires her to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but not necessarily to swallow everything the UN Committee says.
The Convention makes no mention at all of corporal punishment, corporal discipline or smacking. Even so, the Committee has released its “General Comment No. 8” dated 2 June 2006, titled, “The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment.” Note that this extremist Committee says that corporal punishment is just one “other” form of “cruel and degrading” punishment. It gets worse. In paragraph 11 it says, “The Committee defines “corporal” or “physical” punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.”
First this Committee goes way outside of and beyond the Convention by trying to prohibit corporal or physical punishment. Now it says children should have legal protection from physical force intended to cause pain or discomfort, however light. How light is that? Perhaps so light that it causes no pain or discomfort at all. Maybe so light the child is barely aware of it. And yet this is assumed by the Committee to be “cruel and degrading” by definition. And it still needs to be legislated against. This is extremist. It’s effect is to do away with physical force altogether.
This is what will be accomplished by Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59 which says parents are justified in using physical force as long as it is for correction and is reasonable in the circumstances. If Section 59 ever goes, any smacking, any force at all by way of correction, training or discipline – however light – will be legally indefensible. Parents’ efforts to correct, train or discipline children with any physical force – however light – will be threatened at all times with a potential criminal charge of child assault, worth as much as two years in jail.
Bradford is at pains to make this very point in her Explanatory Note to the Bill where she says that after repeal parents “will now be in the same position as everyone else so far as the use of force against children is concerned. The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act”. With those few words Bradford reveals her trident of radically anti-parent purposes: to strip parents of their unique authority over their own children; to reduce parents’ position of responsibility to that of any passing stranger; and to threaten them 24/7 with criminal assault charges. Charming.
You can read this latest UN Committee document for yourself, all 17 pages of it, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo
Craig S. Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #104 — Call for Kiro Sacking
28 June 2006
Press Release
For Immediate Publication
Call for Kiro’s Sacking
Family Integrity calls on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Social Development David Benson-Pope to sack Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro for continual abdication of duty.
“Dr Kiro’s response to the violent deaths of the Kahui twins by calling for a ban on smacking is completely detached from reality,” says Family Integrity’s National Director Craig Smith. “She appears consistently incapable of seeing her duty as spelled out in the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.”
The Act requires the Commissioner to have regard to three things: 1) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC); 2) the views of children; and 3) the diversity of New Zealand children.
UNCROC says in its preamble that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” Yet the Commissioner has chosen to ignore this directive and does nothing to stop the yearly 17,000 intentional killings of these children before their birth. Instead she is obsessed with banning smacking. What kind of twisted thinking considers a few smacked bottoms as more worthy of legislative action than the constant blood stained reality of thousands of dismembered babies’ bodies?
Neither does the Commissioner regard the views of the unborn child while its parents and doctors and nurses are planning its death. Dr Kiro does not seek any professional advice on what these children’s views might be nor seek to appoint advocates for these children. She has, however, publicly declared that she ignores them.
These 17,000 aborted babies represent a very large diversity of children that the Children’s Commissioner Act requires Dr Kiro to regard and that UNCROC Article 2 says she cannot ignore: “States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s….birth or other status.” The child’s pre-birth status is not to be used to discriminate against the child.
“Sadly, Dr Kiro appears both unable and unwilling to even consider the most helpless and innocent members of our society as persons worthy of her attention,” said Mr Smith. “New Zealand’s children deserve better than that. Dr Kiro deserves the sack.”
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #103 — Spanking Swedish Bottoms
Spanking Swedish Bottoms
In 1979, Sweden outlawed spanking. Or corporal punishment, to use the vaguely military term preferred by lawmakers. The Swedish Parliament did not bother to specify the punishment for this offense, for as Julian V. Roberts of the University of Ottawa writes in Child Abuse & Neglect, “the principal goal of the Swedish reform was to change public attitudes toward corporal punishment.” As two of the chief ideologists of the ban-spanking movement put it, “law shapes and confirms public values”; “cultural norms are changeable and…legislation can be a key tool in enacting such change.” Yet as Roberts found, this law has had no such effect in Sweden.
Swedes are not ignorant of the prohibition: by 1981, just two years after its enactment, a poll found that almost all adult Swedes knew that spanking had been banned. Nevertheless, the ban seems to have had no effect on public opinion, which in Sweden had turned against corporal punishment some years earlier. Since 1965, the Swedish Opinion Research Institute had asked Swedes if they agreed with the statement, “A child has to be given corporal punishment from time to time.” In 1965, 53 percent of Swedes agreed; by 1968, the number had fallen to 42 percent, and in 1979, the year of the spanking ban, only 26 percent answered in the affirmative. If in fact laws shape norms, one would expect that the percentage of Swedes who favor corporal punishment would have decreased since 1979, but nothing of the sort has occurred: in fact, in 1995, more than one-third of Swedes (34 percent) endorsed corporal punishment in a different survey. Moreover, in a 1991 study more than half (51 percent) of Swedish mothers admitted using physical punishment-a number that was almost certainly depressed by the fact that the women so confessing were acknowledging the commission of a crime. “[I]f anything,” writes Roberts, “public support for corporal punishment has increased” since the ban.
Proposals to outlaw spanking are afoot, or should we say have reared their head, in many Western nations, including Canada, Germany, Spain, and New Zealand. Whether one believes in the efficacy of a hard spank or not, the evidence from Sweden is clear: the laws don’t work anyway.
(Source: Julian V. Roberts, “Changing Public Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment: The Effects of Statutory Reform in Sweden,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 24, No. 8 [August 2000]: 1027-1035.)
Family Integrity # 102 — Carey College submission
Dear Friends,
I’ve just read through the oral submission of Carey College (principal, Michael Drake). It is brilliant.
A one-page summary is at:
http://careycollege.com/education/currentissues/?id=451
and full text at:
http://careycollege.com/education/Oral%20Submission%20Full.pdf
This full text is well worth reading. VERY encouraging.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #101 — Ruby to talk of negative Swedish experiment
On Scoop:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00170.htm
Swedish lawyer to speak on effect of smacking ban
Friday, 16 June 2006; 12:43 pm
Press Release: Family Integrity
16 June 2006
Family Integrity Press Release
For Immediate Distribution
Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, coming to New Zealand next month, will be the most qualified person ever to speak in New Zealand on the effect of Sweden’s smacking ban on that country’s social fabric.
Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba in Canada has been to New Zealand twice reporting on her research trips to Sweden – all paid for by the Swedish government. Plunket, Barnardos, the Children’s and Families’ Commissioners, UNICEF, EPOCH and others, who were all happy to listen to Dr Durrant, will at last be able to speak face to face with someone who not only lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish, but someone who, as a lawyer there, deals directly with the interface between the law and its application to society. It appears this interface is savagely chewing up many children and families, leaving a trail of permanent damage. But it is all done in the best interests of the child, they say.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson is also a founder and the Chair of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, a Scandinavian-wide organisation of lawyers concerned about this social damage committed in the name of social good. They receive no government funding. Mrs Harrold-Claesson will be like a voice from the future, giving first-hand reports of where legislation similar to that proposed by Green MP Sue Bradford to repeal Section 59 has led Sweden, a trail New Zealand will hopefully not follow.
Such legislation removes real authority – the kind that can be backed up with force when necessary – from parents and transfers it to the state who can use whatever force it likes. Indeed, in Sweden the numbers of social workers and foster families has had to increase dramatically to cope with the force the state required to be used to implement its non-smacking laws. These do what Bradford, Kiro and the anti-smacking lobby assure us will not happen here: parents are arrested and charged for “minor” technical assaults as well as children being removed from their families.
These laws have also become more stringent in Sweden since smacking was banned in 1979. To further enforce the view that children should have as many rights and as much autonomy as adults, parents can now be charged with “disturbing the peace” of children. We’ve seen it in the schools in New Zealand: having banned the cane, teachers are now advised not to touch students in any way for any reason apart from dire emergencies, lest they be charged with some kind of assault, physical or sexual. Imagine the psychological harm to both parents and children if parents become afraid to even touch their own children. According to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, this is the situation rapidly developing in Sweden.
Mrs Harrold-Claesson has advised Family Integrity that she is eagerly looking forward to meeting with the heads of as many child advocacy groups as possible.
Family Integrity #100 — Ruby on Radio NZ
Radio New Zealand talked with Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson by phone on Wednesday 14 June 2006. Have a listen:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/anti-smacking_bill
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity #99 — Positive Press from USA
Monday, 12 June 2006
Is spanking abuse or discipline?
From: Salem (Ohio) News, 11 June 2006
http://www.salemnews.net/news/story/0611202006_new10brownfield.asp
By CATHY BROWNFIELD/Family Recovery Center
Spanking: Abuse or discipline? “I don’t know what to do with Charlie anymore,” the young mother complained. “We’ve talked and talked to him, but he still is out of control.”
“Maybe you’ve talked too much. Maybe Charlie needs to understand that there are consequences for his actions, sometimes painful consequences. Maybe you need to give him a spanking,” her mentor advised.
The mentor could remember when the public discussion of the inappropriateness of spanking was brought to her consciousness. “You know, my mother spanked my siblings and me. She didn’t have to do it very many times for me to understand that I didn’t like the spankings and I didn’t like the humiliation that went with it. I didn’t want to disappoint or embarrass my family.
“The kids in the neighborhood thought we never got disciplined, but my mother didn’t let us off. She extended the courtesy to us of disciplining us in private. Oh, we’d get to apologize for our crime to whomever we needed to apologize, and we got what we deserved behind closed doors. I can honestly say that none of my siblings or I ever were in trouble with the law, the justice system. We all are dependable, honest and sincere. I credit a good mother who didn’t just hit us for no reason. When we got it she made sure we knew WHY we were getting it and she made sure we understood that she loved us.”
The young mother, like so many other parents today, was fearful of corporal punishment. She didn’t want to face charges of child abuse. She, like so many other parents today, needed to understand the difference between child abuse and discipline.
John S. Lyons, University of Northwestern Medical School in Chicago, wrote an article, “Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment Increases Aggression?”
“Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggressionŠthe 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal punishment, usually in 2- to 6-year-olds,” he wrote.
“Although the Swedish anti-spanking law [1979] was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49 percent higher than the United States one year after the anti-spanking law was passed.
“[Data] suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increasedŠrelative to the decreasing rate in the United States.”
“Child abuse is a reality, and stories of child abuse are horrifying,” advise Drs. Den. A. Trumbull and S. DuBose Ravenel. Both have pediatric practices, Trumbull in Montgomery, Ala. and Ravenel in High Point, N.C. “But while loving and effective discipline is quite definitely NOT harsh and abusive, neither is it weak and ineffectual. Indeed, disciplinary spanking can fall well within the boundaries of loving discipline and need not be labeled abusive violence.”
The Family Research Council commissioned a consumer research poll. Of those contacted, “More than four out of five Americans who were actually spanked by their parents as children say it was an effective form of discipline.”
“The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental effects of spanking in certain situations,” advise Drs. Trumbull and Ravenel.
“Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use.
“Reactive, impulsive hitting after losing control due to anger is unquestionably the wrong way for a parent to use corporal punishmentŠif proper spanking is proactively used in conjunction with other disciplinary measures, better control of the particularly defiant child can be achieved, and moments of exasperation are less likely to occur.”
Points to Ponder
o It isn’t whether spanking is used. It’s HOW spanking is used.
o Maternal permissiveness and criticism has been linked to childhood aggressiveness than physical discipline.
o Removing effective spanking from a parent’s disciplinary repertoire, leaves him or her with nagging, begging, belittling, and yelling, once the primary disciplinary measures have failed.
o Parents employing balanced discipline (including spanking) and positive encouragement have the better-behaved children.
o Very compliant children may never need spanking because they respond to milder forms of correction.
Drs. Trumbull and Ravenel suggest that “Spanking should be used selectively for clear, deliberate misbehavior, particularly that which arises from a child’s persistent defiance of a parent’s instruction.
It should be used only when the child receives at least as much encouragement and praise for good behavior as correction for problem behavior.
All kids misbehave. They all need to receive the negative consequences of their actions. Parents should stay firm, fair and consistent.
Family Recovery Center is dedicated to promoting healthy individuals, families and communities. www.familyrecovery.org The agency is located at 964 N. Market St., Lisbon; phone, 330-424-1468; e-mail, info@familyrecovery.org.
Family Integrity #98a — Ruby Harrold-Claesson Press Release
Sunday, 11 June 2006
Here is the press release that went out announcing Ruby Harrold-Claesson coming to NZ.
It is sent out via Family First (Bob McCoskrie, formerly of Radio Rhema) since FF has joined with SPCS (Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, David Lane) and FI in a one-issue “Section 59 Coalition”. We three make up the executive committee. Also part of the Coalition are Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz) and Muriel Newman’s NZ Centre for Political Debate (www.nzcpd.com) and it is envisioned that others will also join.
The Select Committee had offered Mrs Harrold-Claesson a miserly 10 minutes in Auckland on July 27. Then they said they were no longer meeting on July 27. Now they are meeting in Hamilton on 27 July, in Christchurch 20 July and in Wellington 13 July.
More about media appearances and meetings with MPs later.
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
| Newsletters # 95 – 98 |
Family Integrity # 98 — Encouragement
Dear Friends,
I get a daily devotional from the pastor in Peoria, Illinois, who married our son Zach & Megan last year. Today’s one I found very encouraging. With a wee bit of obvious tweaking form me, I present it to you. (You may subscribe to Mark Henninger’s devotionals by emailing him at: stonewall@bwsys.net. The church he pastors can be viewed at: http://www.pcaredeemer.org/. Check out his sermons on audio (under Resources), especially A Profaned Ministry on 2005-11-06.)
Psalm 94:12 & 13 says,
“Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O LORD, and teach out of Your law, that You may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.”
It is intriguing that our learning from God’s word, in the context of His church, is intended to “give [us] rest” — and that rest is from “days of adversity.” So, all the effort we put into learning what God’s Word says and applying it to our lives and co-operating with His Holy Spirit to change our thoughts, words and deeds to be more Christlike….all of this labouring away at our sanctification turns out to be largely designed, in the end, to forward our respite from and deliverance from evil.
We must persevere, endure and sweat “until the pit is dug for the wicked.” This has both a temporal (provisional) sense — from Sunday to Sunday; and an eternal (absolute) sense – that of our rest in heaven. I suspect it may also have an intermediate sense – such as seeing Parliament dump (as into a pit) the Bill to repeal Parental Authority (Section 59).
Sanctification is worth it: don’t give up.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity # 97 — It’s All Go!
We are so grateful for the overwhelming response to our urgent request for funds to enable Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s visit to NZ next month. Ruby is founder and chair of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, www.nkmr.org, founded to oppose the extensive social damage being done in Scandinavian countries due to their anti-smacking legislation.
The budget for this event has now been covered, and her visit will go ahead, the Lord willing, with her arriving in Auckland on Wednesday 19 July and departing from Auckland on Tuesday 1 August. Your kind donations will enable us to fly her between Auckland and Wellington and anywhere else needed while she is here. The priorities are for her to speak with MPs, leaders of child advocacy groups and other NGOs, and of course the media, in the hopes of getting Parliament to drop Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59, a move that would effectively repeal parental authority over their own children.
Many have kindly extended invitations for Mrs Harrold-Claesson to stay and/or speak to their local group. Thanks so much for these! We are keeping track of them all and will review them once we have nailed down as many of the priority appointments as we can. There will also be opportunities for others to come and speak to your organisation later on.
Having said that, there is still much more that we want to do to keep the momentum going between now and 31 October, when the Select Committee is due to present their findings and recommendations to Parliament for the Bill’s second reading. As we seek to keep up the pressure in our fight against the Crimes Amendment Bill, your prayers, financial contributions and moral support will continue to be most welcome.
Family Integrity is not working alone in this. Bob McCoskrie of Family First (www.familyfirst.org.nz) and David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (www.spcs.org.nz) are both giving of their considerable talents and expertise in arranging important meetings for Mrs Harrold-Claesson. I understand the Sensible Sentencing Trust (www.safe-nz.org.nz) is also keen to lend its name to this undertaking.
Thanks again so much for your support!
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity # 96 — New Poll To Take
http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/content/parents_and_smacking.htm?PHPSESSID=3b64ff08afcc910930a9ed27ca9097dd
Greetings all,
You may want to participate in this quick poll.
FYI, when I did it, being the totally biased person that I am, I answered one question this way:
Q: Should there be a period of sustained parent education before any change?
My Answer: No. Because there shouldn’t be any change; therefore no education is needed. And the state is certainly not the one to educate in this area, and probably not in any other either.
http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/content/parents_and_smacking.htm?PHPSESSID=3b64ff08afcc910930a9ed27ca9097dd
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
Family Integrity # 95 — Urgent Request
Dear Friends,
Family Integrity has an extremely urgent issue we are asking you to please consider.
We have booked a flight to bring out from Sweden lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who defends families there who are being prosecuted and who are having their children taken from them under the Swedish no-smacking legislation. Ruby says the destruction of families in Sweden is horrendous. She is very keen to come and testify before the NZ Select Committee and warn them NOT to let this Bill of Bradford’s to ban the use of force by parents to proceed. She has founded and chairs the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, www.nkmr.org (click the Union Jack for English site), composed of lawyers from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark who are also concerned about the level of social damage such legislation is causing in their respective countries.
We need to confirm (pay for) the flight and commit to other expenses by this coming Tuesday 6 June. Therefore PLEASE ACT ON THIS TODAY!
We are working every network we can think of asking for three things: 1) prayer; 2) that this message be forwarded as far and wide as possible; 3) funds.
1) Please pray that the funds will arrive, that she will survive the brutal non-stop flying and airport transfers, that her testimony will mightily impact the Select Committee, and that this Bill of Bradford’s will be discarded.
2) Please send this around to as many as you feel would consider it.
3) Money: The Select Committee have given her a mere 10 minutes on 27 July. As outrageous as this is, we will also have her travel NZ to speak with NGOs, MPs, the media, churches, etc. She is booked to arrive in Auckland 20 July and depart 1 August. We need funds not only for her airfares here, but also travelling and accommodation while here. We reckon NZ$7,000 should cover most of it.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson will clear up some of the myths we’ve been hearing for years about the Swedish “paradise”. Ruby is a native of Jamaica, meaning English is her first language. A brief bio is at: . We need money or pledges for money by this Tuesday 6 June. If we have it, we proceed. If we don’t, we will cancel the bookings and abandon the whole project. Thank you for considering this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, to make a pledge or send cheques made out to Family Integrity, or email us for FI’s bank account number to make a direct credit:
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
Ph. (06) 357-4399
Fax (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
PS – Attached is an article from the sodomite lobby which says they see this Section 59 debate as a key issue in their agenda to socially engineer New Zealand their way.
Comment: Section 59: A Social Conservative Retreat?
25FEB06 – Craig Young
Have LGBT community efforts led to a considerablely weakened Christian Right effort
against Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Repeal Bill? What does this have to do with us, one might
ask.
Lesbian feminists have had longstanding involvements within the child protection profession.
Added to which, this particular political initiative is the first real test of opposition to the
Christian Right during this political term, and will disclose what condition they might be in
for later reform initiatives, like transgender inclusive anti-discrimination laws and adoption
reform legislation. It has strategic significance to us.
With the Bradford Bill, the Christian Right is facing one of its worst nightmares. What do
they do when professional opinion is heavily stacked in favour of repeal legislation? Simply,
the answer is: what Christian Right? Family Integrity, Christian News, Garnet Milne and
SPCS are plugging away there still, but there are severe constraints on the opposition. The
Maxim Institute put together an anemic looking brief guide to the private members bill in
question, without even providing background information, or links to anti-repeal websites.
Conservative Catholics are nowhere to be seen, preferring to prioritise their anti-euthanasia
activities.
Moreover, there are geographical limitations. Family Integrity/Christian News are based in
Palmerston North, while Garnet Milne squats malignantly in Wanganui, as minister of the
Reformed Fellowship of that provincial city, and opposition seems website-based and virtual.
Unlike the Civil Union Act debate, there have been no public meetings, no anti-repeal
petitions, or even widespread distribution of anti-repeal propaganda.
If there is a public presence, it belongs to the children’s health and welfare groups that
dominate the debate. They have distributed pro-repeal brochures, and and have attracted
support from the Body Shop, now distributing a pro-repeal petition.
Bluntly, the Christian Right response has been pathetic. Because they lack anyone credible
with experience in pediatrics or developmental psychology, there has been resort to
predictable populist attacks on pro-repeal medical professionals as members of a sinister
‘elite’ opposed to ‘traditional families,’ who are attacking the parental ‘right’ to belt kids.
Again, this is significant to us. Pediatric and child development specialists will also be
relevant to LGBT debates around adoption law reform, when our time finally arrrives. Then
there’s the inevitable conspiratorial approach, in which an unrepresentative group of ‘activists’
has seized control of pro-repeal child health and welfare groups. No, pro-repeal child health
and welfare groups are basing their case on coalface professional practice, and evidencebased
research derived from that practice.
No matter, National’s so-called ‘family’ spokesperson, Judith Collins, is once again pandering
to the fundamentalist lobby over this issue. “Parenting is not an academic issue,” she whines.
Sue Bradford and Ruth Dyson replied that if she wasn’t going to listen to professional prorepeal
opinion, then what did she base her opinions on? One can only hope that John Key
abolishes this ridiculous shadow portfolio when he takes over as Leader of the Opposition, if
all Collins will ever do is listen to unrepresentative social conservative lobby groups, and
ignore evidence and practice-based professional research on family policy issues. Including
ours.
I still predict that the Christian Right will lose this one. There’s nothing like the opposition
that existed to either the decriminalisation of sex work or LGBT relationship recognition.
And if it works for Section 59 Repeal, then what about Georgina’s transgender protection bill,
and eventual inclusive adoption law reform?
Given this bill’s importance as an index of the strength of the Christian Right, I recommend
that there is an influx of LGBT supporters who support Bradford and reform proponents
throughout this process. Write submissions and support her bill.
Recommended:
www.greens.org.nz
If you want to help Sue Bradford’s repeal efforts, email her at: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.
nz
Not Recommended:
www.familyintegrity.org.nz
www.christiannews.co.nz
www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
www.section59.com
www.spcs.org.nz
ENDS
GayNZ.com
http://www.gaynz.com/
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1206&print=yes
Leave a Reply