• Anti-smacking law insult to Tino-Rangatiratanga

    “That’s some of the reasons why the ACT party stands for the repeal of this anti-smacking legislation, and that’s why I do too,” said Mr Tashkoff Press Release: Friday, 26 June 2009
  • Recent Posts

  • Networkedblogs

  • Recent Comments

  • Christian Blog Topsites

    Christian Blog Topsites
  • Tags

  • Don’t Vote Labour

  • Unity For Liberty

    Anti-Smacking Petition
    Signature Counter

  • September 2021
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb    
  • abort73

    For more information about abortion and what you can do to help, please visit... Abort73.com http://www.abort73.com/
  • Archives

  • Statcounter since February 2008

  • online counter
  • Meta

  • Blog Catalog since May 2008

  • « | Main | »

    Man to face trial over alleged ‘ear flicking’

    By HEF Admin | August 21, 2008

    This is what someone said on an email discussion group:

    ‘So this is what it has come down to – a father charged with assault for flicking his kid’s ear!

    Meanwhile no-one is held responsible for the deaths of the Kahui twins.

    Is this the sort of country we want New Zealand to be?


    Man to face trial over alleged ‘ear flicking’

    2:44PM Thursday August 21, 2008

    The Christchurch man accused of assaulting his two young sons will face trial.

    In January, Jimmy Mason claimed he was harassed by the police when he was spotted publicly disciplining his four-year-old son.

    He claims he only flicked the boy’s ear and that witnesses, including a teacher and an off-duty police officer, overreacted.

    Mason was then charged with assaulting both his two sons, aged two and four.

    A short depositions hearing took place in the Christchurch District Court this morning at which all the evidence was presented in written form. The media was not permitted to access the evidence.

    Four witnesses will give evidence in Mason’s trial, for which a date is yet to be set.


    Topics: News Media/Press Releases | 1 Comment »

    One Response to “Man to face trial over alleged ‘ear flicking’”

    1. Mrs Dianne Woodward Says:
      August 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 am

      Why of why should the Mother of all Mothers deny 85% of us a chance to be heard, we must let our opinion out on our Voting Paper in 3 months time as a postal ballot next year would cost much more money.390,000 signatures (thanks to the tireless effort of Sheryl Savill and Larry Baldock’s petition for a referendum) means Labour’s Green, Progressive and United Future Parties should allow us a chance to answer the question this election. Radio Live interviewed Nigel Latta (clinical psychologist) who deals with the worst end of family violence and is an authority on child abuse who agrees a light smack shouldn’t result in a visit from CYFS (Feilding Mum knows about this) or Police (as the Senior Journalist in Auckland experienced and Musician ear flicker in Christchurch experienced). MPs have sold Mum’s and Dad’s a lie that a smack is violence against children, Simon Barnett and Christine Rankin have evidence Section 59 only failed 6 times in 16 YEARS.National, Act, Family, Kiwi Parties are demanding the question should be on our voting paper so 85% of Kiwis can speak sixteen weeks from today. Fortunately Family First (lobby group) reports to us the facts that some guilty good parents and even grandparents are being persecuted presently. The only right and just thing for this PM to do is allow us a chance to give our own opinion as PM in waiting John Key seriously suggested to her I wish she would listen.