Ads taken out for ‘anti-smacking’ repeal

Ads taken out for ‘anti-smacking’ repeal

Sunday, 08 February 2009

Lobby group Family First has placed advertisements in all three Sunday newspapers calling for the repeal of the “anti-smacking law”.

The advertisement described four cases where parents were investigated by Child, Youth and Family following the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically punish their children.

A late amendment to the law added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.

The cases referred to CYF included two where parents admitted smacking their children as a last resort and one where CYF investigated when her child told a friend’s mother he had been smacked.

The fourth involved a child complainant who was found to have been angry with her mother for being grounded.

“The tragedy is that families are seeking help in their role as parents but as soon as they acknowledge that they smack or have smacked, they are immediately being referred to CYF and their children are being removed,” Family First director Bob McCoskrie said.

CYF eventually closed the investigation in all four cases, the advertisements say.

A fifth example described a case where a woman was suspended by a community centre for what Family First says was a tap on the back of the hand.

She was eventually reinstated after the employer dropped the case after her lawyer intervened.

Mr McCoskrie called for the repeal of the law, saying it was penalising good parents while not tackling the real causes of child abuse.



One response to “Ads taken out for ‘anti-smacking’ repeal”

  1. Mrs Dianne Woodward Avatar
    Mrs Dianne Woodward

    Sue Bradford, Cindy Kiro, Helen Clark and indecisive Peter Dunne have cost this country countless dollars in daring to ignore 8 in 10 Kiwis that’s 84% of all Mums, Dads, Grandmothers and Grandfathers. Cases Family First have highlighted just prove the hell each and every single parent feels with a guilt trip each and every time they correct or protect with a light smack when its just a perfectly natural way to discipline as long as there is a warning first beforehand of the consequence if the child disobeys they have a choice afterall because sometimes pleading and reasoning with a child fails but a short, sharp smack is quick, effective and instant dealing to the problem then its all over rather than words which can be so much more hurtful and abusive taking years to recover. National Party MP Chester Borrows explained to each and every politician prior to 2007 that a slight reddening of the skin which disappears within a couple of minutes isn’t equal to child abuse. A light smack wouldn’t LEAVE A BRUISE this is a fact and this present useless law hasn’t stopped our poor little darlings being abused but just makes criminals out of good parents. I’m now expecting that John Key will keep to his word and bin Bradfords bull, bring back section 59 as it was written before Bradfords PC brigade got their hands on it, as a light smack is very reasonable force and now that we finally after all these years have such a commonsence Dad as our PM who is such a delightful breath of fresh air then maybe we will just get a bit of normality back into Parliament as they have just decided a school sausage sizzle fundraiser and pie are just part of life in NZ so its not really necessary for the Government to tell us what to eat or how to raise our children as we like to think for ourselves thats why we are so blessed to have Paula Bennett, Judith Collins, Christine Rankin, Sheryl Savill, Bob McCoskrie, Larry Baldock, Lindsay Perigo and John Tamahere speaking out for us.

Leave a Reply

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