FI – 254-257

Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford’s bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.

The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.

Don’t be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don’t believe me.

‘Nothing’ [in the rest of the bill] ‘or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.’

Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.

The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.

It’s now the people against Parliament.

by Renton, Porirua

Hard on the heels of radical legislation passed yesterday which will make parents criminals for correcting their children, our Prime Minister is now going to officially push our Christian heritage off the stage.

Attached for your information.

In Christ’s service,

Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Fax +64 6 357-4389
craig@hef.org.nz
http://www.hef.org.nz

Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/
http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz/
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…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

I’ll just forward this from a Family First press release:

Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what “correction” means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that “correction” will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will “correction” be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends “correction” then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child’s aberrant behaviour. And if that isn’t silly, I don’t know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply –
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC – The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

Regards,

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

Our Home….Our Castle

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

Please do take a moment to send your thanks to the following MPs who voted against the bill.

United Future had a meltdown, losing one of its three MPs, Gordon Copeland, who resigned over this bill and is now an Independent, as is Taito Phillip Field (who resigned from Labour). Judy Turner voted against the bill and contrary to her party’s leader, Peter Dunne.

ACT’s two MPs voted against the bill…the only party to wholly vote against it.

NZ First was split, these 3 voting against the bill, the other 4 voting for it.

The most disappointing of all is National, all of whom voted for this bill. I feel utterly betrayed by them.

However, these 8 listed here deserve our warm thanks.

Gordon Copeland, Independent: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Taito Phillip Field, Independent: taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
Rodney Hide, ACT: rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
Mark, Ron Mark, NZ First: ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz
Pita Paraone, NZ First: pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz
Rt Hon Winston Peters, NZ First: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Heather Roy, ACT: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz
Judy Turner, United Future: judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz

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

Our Home….Our Castle