29 October 2007 – Family Integrity #301 — Bloggers make salient points

Dear Friends,

Here are some insightful comments from bloggers about the mum who was FOR Bradford’s bill and has now become a victim of the bill.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

From: http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/it-has-started.html
New Zealand Conservative
Sunday, October 28, 2007
It has started
Front page of today’s Sunday Star Times: School dobs mum to CYF for smacking son’s hand. There were several interesting aspects to this case:

1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a “child abuser” for a simple smack on the hand.

2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn’t.

3. She did not want to be named because she ‘fears losing her children’. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.

4. We can see that it will not take much for people to ‘dob in’ parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been ‘educated’ that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?

5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but ‘reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse’. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.

Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the “crime” of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?

From: http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/bradford-attacking-the-friends-of-section-59-repeal/
Bradford Attacking the Friends of Section 59 Repeal
Oct 28th, 2007 by scrubone

Here’s a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

“My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property.”
[the bill is]…”a necessary step in a complex process of weaning our society away from a culture of violence and abuse of our children.”
…”we view children as second class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults.”
“I reject absolutely the idea that parents have a God-given right to beat the evil out of their kids.”
(Pretending the opposition to the bill was just religious extremism was a very common tactic. )

They [The Auckland District Law Society] suggest that, rather than outright repeal, the degree and nature of acceptable violence against children can be calibrated – e.g. by saying that it is okay to use force against three to twelve-year-olds and that there should be no ‘striking above the shoulder’. I believe all children have the right to live in violence-free homes.
“My Bill to repeal Section 59 aims to remove the defence of reasonable force from parents who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury.”
“Those who perpetrate the abuse and successfully apply section 59 as their defence remain unaccountable to our justice system.”
That’s a selection of quotes from this post.

Clearly, this woman would never have thought of herself as “seeing children as her property”, or propagating a “culture of violence” or viewing her kids as “second class citizens”. She never thought that she would be treated the same was as parents who “who badly beat their children, often with weapons that leave permanent physical injury”.

No, she was and remains a good parent. She never imagined she would be placed in the above categories.

But now she has. She’s been reduced to a state of fear, afraid of the Government using it’s power to remove her children.

She was not afraid because she supported Sue Bradford, believed her statements, but discovered too late the nature of propaganda – whipping up hatred against a non-existent threat, to disguise the real effect. By doing this Sue managed to get get many victims of the law to support it.

But even worse, while opponents saw the curtain of state infiltration into families dropping and took proper precautions, this poor woman kept doing what good parents do, never thinking that someday she might be the target of the bill who’s objectives she supported.

Just one of the more disgusting end results of the lies of Sue Bradford – reducing the enemies of child abuse to living in fear.

29 October 2007 – Family Integrity #300 — Letter from traumatised mum

Dear Friends,

You’ve got to read this. It is the full letter from the Mum who was traumatised by CYFS and Police over smacking her child’s hand. She was FOR Bradford’s bill, and has now become a victim of it. She will, sadly, only be one of many, many more parents to be messed up by an increasingly interventionist state. The mum remains anonymous. I got this from “Big News” blog at http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

Family traumatised by police and CYFS after mum lightly smacked her son on the hand

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand. So she reported it to the Family First lobby who told the media What this story indicates is that anyone who gets reported to CYFS or police for light smacks on the hand will not only recieve unwanted CYFS or police attention, they`ll also get media attention as well.

This is what the woman told Family First. You read it herehttp://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-traumatised-by-policy-and-cyfs.html., first.

Dear Sir,

I would like to inform families of the potential repercussions of Sue Bradford’s bill. I wish to do this by sharing with you our own family’s traumatic experience, since this bill has been approved.

During recent school holidays, I arrived home around 5.30pm after a fun filled day with my children to notice a card left by Child Youth and Family, asking me to get in contact with them ASAP. There was no detail as to the reason. We received no official letter from CYF. After leaving six messages, over a period of four days, I was finally able to contact the Care and Protection officer.

The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning. The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

The Care and Protection officer went on to ask me questions relating to X’s behaviour, and whether they needed help in any way, eg medication, special needs etc. I replied, not that I was aware of – just a normal every day child having a bad day.

She also enquired about my family and when she was satisfied, she assured me that she would not take this any further and could I please ask the school to contact me directly if this sort of thing happened again.

Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate. X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up – X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn’t a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry. The teacher seemed to ask questions about X’s behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was – only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no.

X is worried that they will be taken away, and it is really hard to get X to talk about it. X can also be a bit of a drama queen, and could have exaggerated to the teacher at the time (especially in X’s frame of mind.) My husband did contact the school, to inquire why we weren’t called earlier by the school and that this was just not good enough. He also communicated what the Care and Protection officer had said to us. The school responded that it was new procedure and were sympathetic, but offered us no apology.

This is the first incident of this kind we have had with the school. In the second incident (over 2 months later), I invited another family around for lunch one weekend. After lunch the fathers decided to take the children for a walk to the dairy and park. After they were gone about five minutes, two of my children came back and explained to me that they were goofing around, and that Dad had sent them home.

They continued to goof around outside on the trampoline. X got hurt in the rough and tumble, came inside in a huff. When asked what the matter was by our guest, X rudely replied, I don’t want to talk to you. I kindly asked X to apologise and X walked outside. I followed and asked X to come back inside and apologise. X walked to the furthest side of the tramp, so that I could not reach X and refused to come back inside. My older child who was already on the tramp tried to wrestle X to the other side. There was a lot of yelling, laughing and screaming going on by everyone, as it had turned into a bit of a game. I tried to take control of X and pull the child off the tramp, while the child was shouting and resisting. I smacked X on the backside with the palm of my hand (X was lying on their stomach), pulled X towards me and asked X to control themselves. Finally X came inside and went to the bedroom. I told X to stay there until they apologised.

Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T’s and dot their I’s.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn’t smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child. The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left.

These events have traumatised my children, not to mention my husband and myself.

I understand the Police and Child Youth and Family Services were doing their jobs, and I commend them for it. But come on…this is going a bit far don’t you think? My children have always had a healthy respect for the police, now sadly that has been altered. I am concerned for the welfare of this country if this sort of thing keeps happening to our families. Our children need security in our system, and shouldn’t be fearful of being pulled away from their families.

We have since received a letter from a Foster Care agency contracted to CYF. They had been made aware of the police visiting us and have offered us their services. Their letter informed us that a social worker would call us in the near future. This was very nice of them, only I feel we would only be wasting their time. I am grateful it was this organisation, rather than CYF.

I really am grieved about where our country is heading. We as a family have been made only too aware, that if we tick anyone off for whatever reason, whether a neighbor, a shop keeper or teacher and they call the police, it is their word against ours. Now that we are in the system, it doesn’t matter whether we are guilty or not. If the police officer doesn’t like us for any reason, they have the power to separate our family. This is a horrible reality!

Again I would like to stress that we are an average NZ family. We have four children – sons and daughters, both teens and younger. We are all law abiding citizens, we don’t drink, smoke or do drugs. We have always encouraged our children to respect authority and after this experience, have all been very traumatized.

An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children’s work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)

If I were to receive an “assault on a child” charge, I couldn’t do these things, and I haven’t even mentioned paid employment. This is an awful thought.

This new law seems to me, only to be creating insecurity for families that are genuinely trying their best to raise healthy, secure children, that are good law abiding citizens, and a lot of extra work for the organisations that are already over worked and under staffed.

We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority.

Yours sincerely

29 October 2007 – Family Integrity #299 — Family First – Let’s Finish What We Started!


http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/images/stop%20the%20abuse.jpg We all want to deal with our appalling rate of child abuse in New Zealand.

The government’s response was to criminalise good parents who corrected their child with a light smack

and the child abuse continues….

Then they spent millions on media advertisements telling us what we already knew – that violence was not ok

and the child abuse continues….

WHY? Because they fail to identify or deal with the factors which lead to a greater chance of child abuse as identified in every UNICEF and CYF report – namely, family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, low maternal age at birth, poverty, poor housing, and single parenthood.

See our 5-point Action Plan at www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

Help us make ‘CHILD ABUSE’ and ‘FAMILY BREAKDOWN’ an Election Issue in 2008

There is currently a petition which has over 200,000 signatures demanding that a Referendum be held on this issue.

If we can get the required 300,000 signatures, child abuse and family breakdown will become an election issue in 2008 and political parties will have to tell us how they are going to deal with our unacceptable rate of child abuse – solutions that are practical, achievable, and targeted at the real causes of child abuse. Then you can vote accordingly.

Please join us in November for

“The Great New Zealand Table Challenge”

Family First NZ is joining with a new group

Unity for Liberty http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to ‘take up arms’ – that means pens, tables and petition forms!

When: The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better)

Where: The length and breadth of New Zealand

Why: To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated

How: By being available in your own communities for NZ’ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business
on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field – mid-week touch – flower shows – Expos – wherever there’s a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)


Start planning now. Grab family and friends – borrow a table, and print off a pile of petition forms http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html and you’re all set to go.

Thank you for taking action on this important matter.

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/images/billy%20graham.jpg As Billy Graham said, “Our motto too often seems to be, ‘Stay aloof. Don’t get involved. Let somebody else stick his neck out.’ In the face of all kinds of conditions screaming to be rectified, too many of us find ourselves afflicted with moral laryngitis.”

Let’s speak up – and demand that as a country, we tackle actual causes of child abuse with solutions that will work.

Kind regards
Bob McCoskrie

P.S. If everybody who received this email collected just 30 signatures on each petition we would reach our target. It’s that easy!! So aim for 100 signatures to avoid any doubt!

29 October 2007 – Family Integrity #298 — School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack


If you haven’t already read the latest of how ordinary parents are being victiminsed by the re-write of Section 59, here is a wee excerpt plus link to the article. Below that is Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s response.


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Our Home….Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

—–Ursprungligt meddelande—–
Från: Barbara Smith [mailto:Barbara@hef.org.nz]
Skickat: den 28 oktober 2007 04:10
Till: Ruby Harrold-Claesson;
Ämne: School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack


School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
By RUTH LAUGESEN – Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 28 October 2007

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

“I don’t want to feel like a child abuser, and I don’t want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son,” she said. “It’s brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress.”

Read more here:

—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:03 AM
Subject: SV: School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack

Dear All,

I’m not surprised at all. This is just the beginning. In Sweden we have 7000 reports of child abuse per year and that figure jumped 14 percent in February. Cases like this one was exactly what I warned NZ for when I visited in July of last year – I had the verdicts to prove it – but the law-makers refused to listen.

To quote from Family Integrity: 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

Also, good quotation from the Stuff article:
“The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, “not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level”.” Let those who sympathised with Bradford feel the brunt of it. Who did she expect would be affected, other people’s families? Isn’t it typically psychopathic not to be able to empathize with others, but only to recognise one’s own suffering?

By the way, was the govt. minister who was seen smacking his child ever prosecuted? I think he should have been prosecuted.

Have the NZ media picked up the article about the British govt. U-turn as yet? You know, one can always count on the British to have a common sense approach, which is totally lacking in Sweden and obviously also in NZ.

All the best to you and yours. Hope you all had a pleasant weekend.


24 October 2007 – Family Integrity #297 — U4L, table challenge update

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:28 PM
To: Craig
Subject: U4L, table challenge update

Hi All,

Very encouraged with the progress and the preparation thats happening around the country.

How Important are the TABLES? answer “VERY”

From the tables we manned to date, we are hearing many different stories and situations, and there has also been a few sad CYFS stories. If you hear any SAD CYFS stories please take details and forward these contacts to Family First.

The tables also remind the public, I have lost count of the number of people who have gone out of their way to encourage us to continue and are also encouraged that not all NZer’s are being apathetic.

There is one special lady in Howick, Barbara from Precepts, we met her at one of our tables, unfortunately Saturday tables are very hard for her to support, from our last Howick table we had a number of the public respond saying that “I have already signed, it was Barbara from Precepts .” Well done Barbara.

I attended a meeting of about eight men in Howick to explain the purpose of “Unity for Liberty”, two of the men had first hand contact with our tables, people do notice.

Recent collections over the past week include a very successful campaign in Hawkes Bay at the A & P show, they collected 1246 signatures in three days. If there is anyone in the Hawks Bay area who would like to assist in any further campaigns please email our coordinaters at hawkesbay@unityforliberty.net.nz

In South Auckland we had tables in Papakura and Howick, these tables collected 1495 signatures over 5 days .(including Targa Day in Papakura)

Some more Great New Zealand Table Challenge activities, if I have missed your initiative please e-mail me details, Thanks.

Starting from the: North Shore, one Church homegroup are planning a table for the last Two weeks of November

West Auckland, theres going to be a bit of action here, yet to be confirmed

Howick, there should be at least two tables over the four weeks

Mangere, again there is a bit of action here, final plans to be confirmed

Manurewa, in the process of gearing up a mid week table and Saturday doorknocking

Papakura, have one table running mid week when volunteers are available, also a great place for Saturday doorknocking

Pukekohe, gearing up a table for the main street for all 4 Saturdays

Christchurch, there should be five tables running here and looking for doorknocking teams, for further information please email chch@unityforliberty.net.nz

Also a table at the A&P Show.

Invercargill we have a recent registration who will be promoting the collection of signatures through several companies, good initiative.

If you’d like to help with one of the above groups, please email area contact or myself at craig@unityforliberty.net.nz

Here’s the equation: 2500 people x 10 signatures per Saturday of November = 100,000 signatures.

Any queries please feel free to contact me
Craig Hill


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

24 October 2007 – Family Integrity #296 — Ode to Section 59 Petition

The sky is blue, the sun is hot,
Two redheads wait in a shady spot,
In front of them a table stands,
A trusty, stable Bunnings brand.

To a pole and fence signs are taped,
The content of which make people gape,
‘What’s this about?’ a person asks,
‘A stupid law has just been passed.’

‘Under this law, if you smack your child,
(They don’t care if his behavior’s wild),
Into your house civil servants will come,
Beating upon their proverbial drum.

‘”You smacked your child,’ is what they’ll say,
We’re sorry, we must take your child away,
Because, (and we’re certain that you’ll agree)
For your child, State care is a necessity.”

And that’s exactly what they’ll do,
Your child will enter a State run zoo,
If you dare to use your parental right,
Your child will be in a miserable plight.

So help us today, and sign the petition,
Make an end to Sue Bradford’s ambition,
If you don’t do it now it could be too late,
To save our kids from a horrible fate.

by Lydia

21 October 2007 – Family Integrity #295 — More bad news from violent-free Sweden

—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:47 PM

I have some devastating news from Sweden, but I haven’t had the time to write an article as yet. You see, violence among juveniles – even those belonging to the upper middle class – is at its peek. On October 6 inst. a father shot and killed a 15-yr old and seriously wounded a 16 yr old. The gang of mopedist (motor driven cycle) youngsters had terrorised the man’s family for more than two years, their reports to the police were ignored etc. That night the youngsters entered the family’s home, threatening then with sticks and other arms and the man acted in self-defence.

Same night October 6, a 16-yr old in Stockholm was clubbed and kicked to death by youngsters of the same age.

June 19, 2007, two 15 yr olds and a 16 yr old torture a handicapped man to death.

The list can be made much longer.

“We are now beginning to see the results of the general lack of standards that the social-democrats made their political agenda during the 1960’s and 70’s. It was about their views of the family, school and teaching and also about law and justice on the whole”, wrote Justice minister Gun Hellsvik and School minister Beatrice ask in their article “Youngsters must be faced with a firm reaction”, that was published in “Burning point”, in the Swedish Daily on Sept. 5, 1993. The Govt. ministers (conservative) stipulated that Sweden needs a new family policy.

Here are two interesting articles:

Police could have prevented teen shooting’
By Paul O’Mahony

Governor calls for parental punishments
Phuket Gazette

All the best

15 October 2007 – Family Integrity #294 — U4L Table Challenge Press release

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:34 PM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: U4L Press release

Press Release

Unity for Liberty calls for calm and action; not hysteria and hype in the lead-up to the next election.

The degree of family breakdown in New Zealand society is evident by the increasing number of brutal child abuse cases that are coming before the courts. There are many reasons for the current level of family dysfunction in New Zealand, but much of it flows from government policy established by the current political leaders. A rampant welfarism and laws that undermine parental authority have worked to dissolve the family unit. We now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation where the same political leaders and public servants, such as Cindy Kiro, are backing harsher sentences for child abuse.

Unity for Liberty sympathizes with those calling for harsher penalties but warns of the danger that now exists where under the current situation good parents are not protected by law. This will mean that the family unit will be further eroded by zealous government staff. It will require more than hype and hysteria to change this situation and turn our society from total disaster. We need laws that will protect and honour the roll of good parents in raising their children. We need to adopt policy that encourages and protects the family unit.

To effect change requires that clam and deliberate steps be made. The first step for New Zealanders is to petition for a citizens initiated referendum so they can have their say at the 2008 election.

To achieve this requires 300,000 signatures.

Unity for Liberty invites all concerned New Zealanders to be involved with ‘The Great New Zealand Table Challenge’ during the month of November. Download the petition now. Download from http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz Click it…Sign it…Send it.

Any queries please contact:
Craig Hill
m 021 746 113


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *