FI-351-A referendum? Why the panic?

21 February 2008 – Family Integrity #351 — A referendum? Why the panic?

Dear Friends,

Immediately below is Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s response to a typically warped press release reproduced further below by Barnardo’s Murray Eldridge. He is the guy whose submission on Section 59 to the Parliamentary Select Committee fully repudiated the Christian philosophy of his organisation’s founder, Dr Thomas Barnardo, and advised that they now operate according to rationalism and secularism.

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if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…

—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Masters Degree in Law from Gothenberg, Sweden
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:46 AM

Subject: SV: A referendum? Why the panic?

Thanks for keeping me up to date with the developments in NZ, Barbara.

“Why the panic?” asks Barnardos CEO.

I would also like to ask “Why the panic?” when the NZ parliament refused to listen to the overwhelming majority of the population that was against the passing of the anti-smacking law in every possible poll; I would also like to ask “Why the panic?” when the NZ parliament forced the MPs to vote according to party lines instead of their own consciences; I would also like to ask “Why the panic?” to pass the law instead of giving the NZ parliament the possiblity to examine the Swedish court verdicts that I presented at the hearing.

Intelligent and caring people can’t think that it is acceptable to let this dangerous law work for two years and then review it. Who is going to clean up the damages done to children and their parents while the govt is waiting to review the law? Barnardos? The PM and her govt? Sue Bradford? Typically, they can make a mess, but they can’t clean up the mess they make.

If this law had been passed in sound, democratic order and due process there would be no need for a referendum today. The PM, Sue Bradford and the other dictators are afraid of that there will be sufficient numbers for a referendum – there may be more than enough already – and most of all they are afraid of the result of a referendum on the anti-smacking law.

Keep up the good work

All the best

A referendum? Why the panic?

Wednesday, 20 February 2008, 5:19 pm
Press Release: Barnardos

A referendum? Why the panic?

“If, as claimed on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report this morning, the
current petition does get the signatures needed to force a referendum on
the law banning physical punishment of children, it will be a dubious
victory achieved by misleading the public,” said Murray Edridge, Chief
Executive of Barnardos New Zealand.

“When Parliament passed the new law last year it made provision for the
operation of the law to be reviewed after two years. Why therefore the
haste to have a referendum nine months before that law review is due?”

“Have the petitioners told the general public about the review? Is there
any reference to it in the material available at their booths seeking
signatures? Is there any reference to the review on the Family First
website? We couldn’t find any!”

“Do actual court decisions in recent months justify such a panicked
reaction? Of course not. Has there been a single court decision since
June 2007 that would cause anxiety for parents? Not one.”

On 4 December, Family First issued a report from the spurious American
College of Pediatricians (its website records 59 charter members)
supporting physical punishment of children, but did not tell the public
that it this was not the mainstream paediatric society in the USA (the
American Academy of Pediatrics which has 60,000 paediatrician members).

On 7 December, Family First issued a statement saying that the original
Section 59 was doing its job when foster parents were successfully
prosecuted for hitting two children with a baseball bat. Yet Family
First offered substantial support and publicity to a woman whose
approach to parenting has resulted in a recent conviction and nine
months imprisonment.

On 20 December, Family First dismissed a Police report claiming that the
Police were ‘totally false’ in stating that they are dealing with one
smacking complaint per week.

“What we have seen is a clear intention to generate concern and anxiety
for parents with alarmist stories that subsequently have failed to be
substantiated. It can only be presumed that this is an endeavour to
engender support for this petition.”

“The reality is that cases prosecuted under the new law have
demonstrated how effective the new law is. The law is now upholding the
new standard, parents are being sent on positive parenting programmes,
and they are not being needlessly prosecuted. If the Police are dealing
with one complaint a week, most are clearly not getting to court, but
are being dealt with by positive discretion as intended under the law

There is no need for anyone to be alarmed, or for a referendum. There is
a need to operate under the new law for two years and then
constructively and dispassionately assess its effect. However most
importantly, there is a need to be continually mindful of the safety and
welfare of our children” concluded Murray Edridge.



3 responses to “FI-351-A referendum? Why the panic?”

  1. I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

    Stacey Derbinshire

  2. Thanks for adding us to your Goggle News Reader. This is a blog that all parents need to be reading.

  3. […] admin wrote an interesting post today on FI-351-A referendum? Why the panic?Here’s a quick excerptprosecuted for hitting two children with a baseball bat. Yet Family First offered substantial support and publicity to a woman whose approach to parenting has resulted in a recent conviction and nine months imprisonment. … […]

Leave a Reply

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