FI – 276-288

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:22 PM
To: Craig
Subject: Unity for Liberty; Table volunteer appeal

Hi All,

Unity for Liberty wishes to focus on other areas in New Zealand, we still needs volunteers to man tables in the Howick/ Pakuranga area.

Here’s some wise words from one Howick resident when they signed the petition “If I don’t sign I can’t really complain, can I?”

The same goes for us, if we don’t make the effort we can’t complain either, funny that, if we don’t achieve the target of signatures I guarantee we will blame all those apathetic NewZealanders out there without looking in our own mirrors. Let’s not fall into this trap.

>From one table in Picton St last Saturday we received 380 signatures, the Saturday before 360 signatures. We need to keep this momentum going and we do need you.

To all those in the Howick/Pakuranga area we ask you to please consider this appeal seriously.

Unity for Liberty will be very appreciative of responses.

Please respond to craig@unityforliberty.net.nz

Thank you

Craig Hill

Mob 021746113

www.unityforliberty.net.nz

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)

I believe it is essential to have the attached questions about the new Section 59 legislation answered authoritatively in order to let parents know where they stand in relation to their legal responsibilities toward their own children. At present one of the most basic and foundational duties of parenting – correcting one’s own children – appears to be a criminal offense.

Can anyone shed some legal light on these issues? Can anyone suggest a lawyer who would be willing to do some pro bono work on these issues?

Is anyone willing to help form a legal defense association for the defense of the many good parents and their children who will inevitably get caught in this malevolent legislation?

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

Here are the questions that must be authoritatively answered.

Following the questions are two items for your ease of reference:
1) a copy of the new Section 59 and
2) a copy of the Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03).

Craig Smith, craig@hef.org.nz, http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz, http://www.hef.org.nz

August 2007

Number One: What Is Meant by “Correction”?
A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term “correction” is not defined?
B. Does Parliament need to define “correction” before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently “correction” used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of “correction” no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as “discipline”, “training”, “punishment” or “guidance”?
C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for “correcting” their children using a Police working definition of “correction”? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of “correction” once a body of case law is built up and precedents established?
D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that “correction” of a child is more than just “incidental to good care and parenting” (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of “good care and parenting”? Are the parent‘s beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law?
E. Is “correction” now not to be considered part of “good care and parenting” (Section 59
(1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all?
F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” Are parents now to understand that neither “discipline” nor “punishment” can be considered part of “good care and parenting” unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?

Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the term “Force” as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion orculture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong?
B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” What if theparent uses force after the event for the purpose of “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage” at any time in the future “in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence” or “in offensive or disruptive behaviour” as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59?
C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading “Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting”, it says, “The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential”. This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)?
D. Does the “reasonable force in the circumstances” of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?

Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty?
A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail?
B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?

Crimes Act 1964
Section 59: Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in
offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

Police Analysis and Guide
2007/03 – Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009

Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the
Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.

New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of –
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Analysis of the New Section Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
• age of the child
• maturity of the child
• ability of the child to reason
• characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
• the circumstances that led to the use of force.

Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.

Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s59(1)(d)).

Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) — nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.

Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
• running across a busy road
• touching a hot stove
• inserting a metal object into a power point
• striking another child or person with an object.

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a
child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).

Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at
types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; …
2. Hurtful, injurious …
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting …
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption …
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.

Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that AreIincidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children.
For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under
this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.

Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member’s supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.
Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in
the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
• establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
• where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
• depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the
discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.

Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child
Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre.
The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.

Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the
appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be
more appropriate.

Howard Broad
Commissioner

I’m forwarding this on behalf of Unity for Liberty. Please give this your serious consideration.

Thanks.
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

Hi All,

An appeal to all concerned citizens in the Howick/Pakuranga area.

“SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?”

AND

“SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT GIVE URGENT PRIORITY TO UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE WIDER CAUSES OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN, FAMILY VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE IN NEW ZEALAND?”

If we want change to the NEW ANTI- PARENTING AUTHORITY LAW then the first step is 300,000 signatures, over 200,000 have been collected, we need another 100,000 by the end of March.

Unity for Liberty is seeking volunteers to assist with the collection of signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum in the Howick/Pakuranga area.

JOB DESCRIPTION: To sit at a table and enjoy the wonderful responses from many other concerned New Zealanders’.

To date we have held two very successful Awareness Campaigns and also manned a table on the main street of Howick. Last Saturday this table collected 360 signatures, that means in total there has been a collection of over 1000 signatures for very little effort. WE HAVE ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE.

TRUTH IS, Unity for Liberty wants to go to other parts of the country and raise AWARENESS there too. We can not do both without your help. Our appeal is for all local Churches, other concerned groups and concerned individuals to stand up and take ownership of this issue in their own area.

At present there is only one table in Howick. With your help we can organize more tables (that means more signatures) around Auckland. Larry Baldock, the initiator of the petition and co leader of Future New Zealand, will be manning the table outside the ANZ, Picton Street, Howick this Saturday morning (25th Aug) till 12pm, (the table will continue until 3pm). We encourage you to come down, meet him, and witness how enjoyable this work really is.

If you can assist please contact

Craig Hill
email craig@unityforliberty.net.nz
mob 021746113

For information about Unity for Liberty and petition forms go to
Web http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz or http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

Please pass this on to others who may be interested

If there are Churches/concerned citizens who wish to man tables in other areas “Unity for Liberty” will be very interested in running Awareness Campaigns in these areas to assist in your work. Thanks

We also need more “FEET ON FOOTPATHS”, if you can assist here it will be much appreciated

Dear Friends,
Here is a 4 Minute & 34 second podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony explaining why social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy. There are two options: freedom with its attendant insecurities of ups and downs or total security which is slavery.

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/freedom.html

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

You may remember the homosexual lobby saying that if Section 59 is repealed, they would know they’ll have no problem passing hate crime legislation. They won’t introduce any just yet since Labour made a deal with UF’s Peter Dunne that they’d not introduce any hate crime legislation until after the next election.

They have good reason for being confident….if parents cannot stop the state from usurping their authority over their own children, who will stand up to stop hate crime legislation?

Here is a film of 9 minutes 11 seconds which shows what kind of injustice goes on in the UK, and what we may have in store in the near future.

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

1 September 2007
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Coming%20Events

Christchurch Feet on Footpaths Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/1-sept-christchurch.html

The Rodney Feet on Footpaths Awareness Campaign
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html

Craig Smith
Family Integrity

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:08 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow

Hi All,

The 2nd Howick/Pakuranga Campaign was an extreme success, not only did we gain more signatures but it was the reaction from the public that speaks volumes.
We soon discovered that the first campaign had primed many to stop and sign this campaign. (at one stage I was forced to carry two clip boards)

This was the reaction from those who had been primed from the first campaign, “I saw you LAST WEEK and did not stop, I’m not going to miss the opportunity this time”.

The significance of this reaction is this, EVERYONE who witnessed our first campaign referred to it as LAST WEEK, it was two weeks ago.

FEET ON FOOTPATH campaigns are styled to impact the mind in this way – clearly it succeeded.

Two young men stopped to sign, asked where they can obtain petition forms so they can take them to Auckland University. Another woman drove past the first campaign, arrived home, then decided to return to sign, only to find that we had finished. She was relieved to see us back. She too thought it was LAST WEEK.

The best part for myself were the cups of coffee supplied by local residents.

The LAST WEEK impact is how I measure the success of FEET ON FOOTPATHS but for those who may measure success by signature here it is. We came home with 380 signatures, the first campaign ran at 1.72 signatures a minute, this one came in at 2.11 a minute, some volunteers had to withdraw at the last minute so we achieved MORE WITH LESS.

Looking forward to the Rodney and Christchurch campaigns on the 1st Sept, I encourage you to support both Arna and Andy who are coordinating these events,they are good people working hard for all New Zealanders.

The more FEET the better, any queries please contact.

Will post more details concerning the 1st Sept campaigns on Wed 15th Aug

Craig Hill
021746113
craighill@maxnet.co.nz
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/

“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)

I’m forwarding this on. Do be involved if you can.

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

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:11 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug

A recent Sue Bradford statement

Did you ever imagine there would be such a strong reaction over the”anti-smacking” bill?
B. Worthington, Auckland

It is not an “anti-smacking” bill. I regret that early on the media picked up and promulgated this description, which solely reflects the views of the bill’s opponents. It is, among other things, an “anti-beating” bill.

IS THIS YOU, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LAW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN AGENDA.

Hi All,

A quick and gentle reminder, Feet on Footpaths this Sat 11th Aug between 9-12am.

We do need more feet. A number of volunteers could only spend an hour due to prior engagements, they were well rewarded for their time.

If there are any queries I would encourage you to email, it was an incredible campaign last time out and there is no reason it won’t be the same again.

The Howick/Pakuranga campaign will be in the Cascades Rd area, if you are in the area make a point of driving past, wave or stop for a chat, be great to see you.

Regards

Craig Hill

www.unityforliberty.net.nz

Are Parents Being Abused?

Listen to this short podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/podcasts/Rushdoony/OTF_35.php

Regards,

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

Our Home….Our Castle

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

I am forwarding this on behalf of another Craig, one who is encouraging us all via “Unity for Liberty”.

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

Hi All

Information on future campaigns, there is some very exciting initiatives.

Unity for Liberty is very excited to be able to work in conjunction with Voice Rodney and announce Arna Mountain as the coordinator for the Feet on Footpath Rodney campaign, details are on the second attachment http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html. Arna is bringing a lot of encouragement and enthusiasm, lets support her efforts.

You can contact Arna by email rodney@unityforliberty.net.nz

There is also an initiative in Christchurch, more information will be released shortly.

Craig
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz

Hi All
“Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
If your answer is “no”, then you are probably concerned at the removal of parental authority and liberty.

On May 17th 2007 the House of Representatives voted 113 to eight in favour of the legislation that repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act and effectively turns you, a loving and responsible parent, into a criminal. Thus, this law seriously erodes and undermines your parental authority, while at the same time empowers the bureaucracy of the State to intrude in the life of your family.

If you were among the approximately 83 percent of New Zealanders who were opposed to this bill and you may be interested in campaigning with us.

Voice Rodney in conjuction with Unity for Liberty will conduct a Feet on Footpaths campaign on 1st September. See http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz plus attached (below) documents for more information.

The benefit of the Local Awareness Campaigns is to transfer the debate, which has until now been limited to central government and mainstream media, into the local communities. Please read the attached here…http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html documents and email me your response as soon as possible.

I need each group to appoint a person who would be responsible to report to me to get final instructions on 1st September on where to be. We will meet and debrief at the end for a few minutes, sharing stories.

Here are some comments from last weeks campaign in Howick

I decided to knock on the doors of people in our street to see if anyone wanted to sign the petition. I left my house after 12 noon, so there had been plenty of time for people to see the placards that were clearly visible in our area…and they had! It was fun to hear these comments from our neighbours:

“Oh, so you are with those people holding up those signs. Good on you!”
“So this is the petition that all those signs are on about!”
“It’s great to see someone doing something about this situation. People in New Zealand are so apathetic!”

I was thankful to know that the signs had been displayed locally and that I wasn’t the only one pacing the streets that day. At least half of the people I spoke to had read the placards and I had a 100% percent success rate: each of my neighbours was willing to sign the petition.

However, I only managed to visit less than half of the houses in our street because everyone wanted to talk about it! Clearly people are disturbed and concerned that the government allowed this Bill to be passed when such a high proportion of the population is against it!

I would encourage you to be involved and help change New Zealand for the better.

Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not you and people from your group can be involved. There is a spreadsheet attached for a list of names.

“Evil prevails when good men do nothing.”

Regards,
Arna Mountain

1st attachment:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-11-august-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html
2nd attachment:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html

Below is a notice of a Conference designed to place children at the center of public policy. That sounds great! But there are, sadly, very sinister implications.

First, children will be considered as autonomous units, apart from and idependent of their families, whanau, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. Parents will be sidelined and their ability to exercise their parental responsibilities will be severely reduced and compromised.

Second, the catch phrase is ‘best interests of the child“. Who determines that and by what criteria?

Let me quote from a very recent NZ book (2006) “From Innocents to Agents: Children and Children’s Rights in New Zealand” by Michael Reid:

Know that the Children’s Commissioner already has plans to officially intervene into each and every family at least 4 times for each child from birth to age 16 to assess the child in the areas of social, cognitive, emotional and physical well being. (See http://www.occ.org.nz the Integrated Framework or Ten Year Vision at bottom right of home page).

I want to strongly urge anyone able to attend to do so, take notes and report to the rest of us. It is important to know what these kinds of folks are up to: they are tireless in lobbying for change. If we see what is coming, we can prepare for it. Otherwise it will just land on our plate and we will panic and need to scramble to keep out of harm’s way.

Call me paranoid if you like. It was attending one such conference that alerted me to how serious the anti-smacking lobby was 12 months before the Bradford Bill came to parliament. It allowed us to have done a lot of thinking on the issue and to have a lot of written material prepared and ready to go to oppose the anti-parent authority (anti-smacking) bill when it arrived. (Although we didn’t succeed in our opposition, it forced them to reveal how hypocritical they are and how thoroughly undemocratic and totalitarian.)

Please attend if you can.

Every Child Counts Conference – Are We There Yet? Placing children at the centre of policy and planning
Sep 5, 2007
9:00 am to 4:30 pm
It does seem as if children are moving out of the twilight margins of political discourse. But are they? Six intriguing speakers will use the question, “Are we there yet?” to examine local and central government efforts to place children at the centre of policy and practice.
Placing children at the centre of policy and planning is core platform for the Every Child Counts coalition. Achieving this goal will deliver more sustainable policies that help ensure the well-being of our most vulnerable citizens.
The speakers are:
Nic Mason: Manager of the Local Government Centre within the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University, Auck
A cross-party panel of MPs: Lynne Pillay, Dr Jackie Blue, Dr Pita Sharples, Sue Bradford, Brian Donnelly. Peter Dunne and Heather Roy will discuss the policies they will pursue to esure children are at the centre of their considerations.
Dr Emma Davies: Principal Advisor (Auck) for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
Bev Adair: consultant and advocate for children, recently working with the “For the Sake of the Children Trust”
Lyn Campbell: Families Commissioner focussing on advocacy for young people and families
Lorraine Tarrant (Ngati Kuia): SKIP Team Manager comes from a teaching background.
Ben Lummis: Ben won the first NZ Idol competition in 2004. Of Maori, Ton gan, Samoan and Pakeha descent, Ben mentors, inspires and motivates young people through his musical work often through community events.

Conference costs are $20 Unwaged individual, $50 waged individual, $150 per organisation for five delegates.
For further information, email: children1st@xtra.co.nz or send details and payment to Every Child Counts Conf, PO Box 6434, Wgtn 6141.
This conference is being held at St John’s Conference Centre, Cnr Willis and Dixon Streets, Wellington.

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

Go to: <http://justice.anglican.org.nz/>

(Here are the current results):
Poll
NZ has an appallingly high rate of child abuse. How do we reduce it?

Stop forcing fathers out of their children’s lives.1
2356% of all votes
Share the Gospel1
717% of all votes
Invest more in parental education
410% of all votes
Increase incentive re paid employment1
37% of all votes
Bring back corporal punishment
25% of all votes
Focus on the causes: alcohol, drugs, poverty etc 1
12% of all votes
Dismantle government school system and return the responsibility back to parents.1
12% of all votes
Total Votes: 41 Started: Aug 3, 2007

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

Here is some great commentary by NZ Herald journo Garth George.

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/media_02.html

He is on the money when he points to the flood of violence and immoral sex on TV, and the abortion industry. But he misses the boat in saying there is a lack of will in enforcing truancy laws. State schools are a major contributor to the problems of family breakdown and increasing violence. They forcibly separate parents from children at an early age and then, with no reference whatsoever to the individual family cultures/values/religions represented in the classroom, the teachers pump the children full of politically determined “values” and “attitudes” that are often not just contradictory and foreign to those of the family, they are often openly hostile to family values and attitudes. Children are alienated from their parents. This has been going on for several generations and has been so successful, this alienation is now considered normal. Too many parents have lost the art of parenting because they’ve let the pre-school, daycare, school and after-school activities and youth groups and the peer group do it for them. When issues arise, parents do what the last two or three generations have increasingly done: assumed they themselves are not qualified to deal with it, so refer it to the school counselling office or some other “professional”.

And this is not a new problem. Schools have noticed it, so have brought on board more counsellors and assigned teachers and counsellors pastoral roles as well as teaching roles. Many schools now have full time social workers. The more the schools have moved into this area of pastoring children, the more parents have given away their own pastoral duties toward their children (urged on by the school and their own business of life). And the more these two things have happened, the worse the problems have become. These generations now raised up with state agents rather than their parents as the major source of counselling and advice are the ones bashing up their own children at greater rates than ever before.

When state agencies get involved in areas they should not be involved in (such as compulsory schooling and counselling and social welfare) the problems inevitably get worse and begin to multiply. The state’s universal answer: throw more money at the problem. The problem simply gets worse.

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