Family Integrity

Year: 2009

  • Children’s rights in the society

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson sent us this translated article:

    http://www.nkmr.org/english/childrens_rights_in_the_society.htm

    Children’s rights in the

    society

    By Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    This year, marks the thirtieth year since Sweden became the first in the world to prohibit child-smacking. The law has attracted much attention internationally and Sweden is considered in large parts of the world as a pioneer country in terms of children’s rights. Bris (Children’s Rights in the Society) notes the anniversary with a campaign where they ask the question “What has actually happened?” It is a sensible question, because now is the time to look back on these thirty years and see what has been achieved. How much is there behind all Sweden’s fine words about the rights of the children?

    Five years before the anti-smacking law was passed the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament) passed another controversial law: that of free abortion. Since 1974, this decision led to over 1 million children being killed in our country. The consequences of the two laws in combination are absurd. In Sweden, a parent is prosecuted and tried in court for a slap in the face. The same parents can be – completely within boundaries of the law – to poison, maim and kill their children if they are younger than 18 weeks old. Smacking a child can lead to police action, whereas that same child could have had its head crushed by an adult at an earlier stage of its development – quite legally. The situation is bizarre and profoundly tragic. Save the Children, Bris and other organizations that claim to protect children’s rights – as far as I know – do not lift a finger to save the unborn children.

    Where is the logic? I who am approximately contemporary with these laws, I am experiencing great pain over the disaster that contempt for the smallest children’s rights has meant for Sweden. The Sweden that we from the late seventies have grown up in has been deprived of one million citizens. People who would have lived among us as our family members, neighbours, schoolmates, colleagues, friends and spouses. People who would have helped to build this country and take care of the older generation. People who are irreplaceable and unique.

    Can all you experts, ideologues and opinion leaders – especially those from the forties – who contributed to the passing of these two laws give me an explanation?

    What were you really thinking?

    Annette Westöö, born 1977, is a MA in Religious Knowledge and she is a teacher for seven years. She is the vice president of the pro-life organisation “Human Rights for the Unborn” and she is an active member of the Swedish Church. Annette Westöö has for many years been an active protector of children’s and their families’ rights. During the past years she has written several debate articles and opinion pieces about the rights of the unborn child.

    The Swedish version of this article has been sent to several Swedish newspapers, but so far its fate is unknown. It is published here with the kind consent of the author.

    Destroying the Family: Swedish style

    A family flees from the Welfare State

    Back to Articles

    Back to Main

    Original Article:

    Barnens rätt i samhället

    Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    I år är det trettio år sedan Sverige blev först ut i världen med att förbjuda barnaga. Lagen har väckt stor uppmärksamhet internationellt och Sverige betraktas i stora delar av världen som ett föregångsland när det gäller barns rättigheter. Bris uppmärksammar jubileet i en kampanj där man ställer frågan ”Vad har egentligen hänt?”. Det är en klok fråga, för nu är det tid att blicka bakåt på dessa trettio år och se vad som åstadkommits. Hur mycket ligger det egentligen bakom Sveriges alla vackra ord om barnens rätt?

    Fem år före anti-agalagens tillkomst stiftade Sveriges riksdag en annan kontroversiell lag: den om fri abort. Sedan 1974 har detta beslut lett till över en miljon barns död i vårt land. Följderna av de båda lagarna i kombination är absurda. I Sverige kan en förälder åtalas och dömas i domstol för en örfil. Samma förälder kan – helt inom lagens råmärken – låta förgifta, lemlästa och döda sitt barn om det är yngre än 18 veckor. En dask riktad mot ett barn kan leda till polisingripanden, medan detta barn kunde ha fått sitt huvud krossat av en vuxen i ett tidigare stadium av sin utveckling –  helt lagligt. Situationen är bisarr och bottenlöst tragisk. Rädda barnen, Bris och andra organisationer som säger sig värna om barns rättigheter har vad jag vet inte lyft ett finger för att rädda de ofödda barnen. Var finns logiken?

    Jag, som är ungefär jämnårig med dessa lagar, upplever stor smärta över den katastrof som föraktet för de minsta barnens rättigheter har inneburit för Sverige. Det Sverige som vi sena sjuttiotalister har vuxit upp i saknar en miljon medborgare. Människor som skulle ha levt ibland oss som våra familjemedlemmar, grannar, skolkamrater, kollegor, vänner och makar. Människor som skulle ha hjälpt till att bygga det här landet och ta hand om den äldre generationen. Människor som är oersättliga och unika.

    Kan alla ni experter, ideologer och opinionsbildare – förmodligen främst fyrtiotalister – som var med och drev fram dessa båda lagar ge mig en förklaring?

    Hur tänkte ni, egentligen?

  • Referendum Voting Papers

    If you…

    didn’t receive your voting papers
    have lost your voting papers
    Voted yes when you meant to vote NO

    then go here:

    http://www.elections.org.nz/app/cir-reissue/

    or ring 0800 36 76 56

  • REFERENDUM COUNTDOWN!

    17 Aug 2009

    REFERENDUM COUNTDOWN!

    Just 4 days to go!

    This is our final ad in today’s NZ Herald . Please be sure to send your voting forms back, and encourage friends, family and work colleagues to do likewise. We’ll let you know the final result as soon as we hear late Friday night.

    MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Who can protect our children?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591094&pnum=0

    Who can protect our children?

    4:00AM Sunday Aug 16, 2009
    By David Fisher

    Our state services fail to protect some of New Zealand’s most severely abused children and allow them to be “revictimised”, according to research published in an international medical journal.

    It says the child protection system could be seen as a “poorly controlled experiment” through the inability of government agencies to work together on cases of child abuse.

    It follows two cases of alleged child abuse last week in Northland, one of which ended in the death of a 2-year-old. The child in the other case – a 17-month-old – was severely injured.

    Social Development Minister Paula Bennett met the families of the two children on Friday. “Protecting our most vulnerable children is of the highest priority to this Government,” she said afterwards.

    Bennett will this week announce the reintroduction of the Never Shake A Baby Campaign.

    “We are also progressing a plan on how agencies will better work together to ensure an abused child is protected if they have been hospitalised,” she said.

    New figures from Starship hospital show the number of children under two with “inflicted traumatic brain injury” has risen sharply over a 20-year study period. They show that in 1988 one child was admitted with an inflicted head injury. Numbers peaked at 13 in 2006 and most recently at 11 children last year.

    The report, published in the Child Abuse & Neglect International Journal, was written by two Starship doctors Patrick Kelly and Judith MacCormick, and an Auckland health board social worker Rebecca Strange, who works with child abuse victims.

    It studies the fate of 39 children aged under two who were treated at Auckland Hospital for “shaken baby syndrome” during the 1990s. It follows their health and development for up to 17 years.

    The “syndrome” has become a term for traumatic brain injury in infants. One of its common causes is hard, physical shaking of the child.

    Most of the children are referred to in the report as “survivors” – six died in hospital and two others have died since, one 15-months later after complications from the original head injury. They were also mainly Maori – a staggering 77 per cent of the 39 children admitted to hospital.

    By December 2007, the children had grown older – they ranged from nine years to 21 – and concerns about repeat abuse had been raised in 44 per cent of cases. This was a “major concern”, the report said.

    It is particularly critical of the former Child Youth and Family service, now part of the Ministry of Social Development. Investigations of “doubtful quality” by CYF meant reports to the agency of fresh abuse against children – even in front of witnesses – would be treated as unproven, when they likely indicated serious risk.

    While the report found CYF had records in all cases, it also found two of the child deaths were never referred to police. And it highlighted a death where a CYF worker rejected medical evidence of abuse to accept the caregiver’s explanation that the child had choked on a piece of bread.

    None of the surviving children was killed or suffered further brain injury from future abuse, possibly due to involvement by state agencies.

    But the authors said the high number who were again seen by agencies was a “major concern” when the object of intervention was not only to prevent death but to keep children safe.

    Sometimes the agencies were called in afresh to deal with cases of neglect and failing to meet a child’s needs – the tragic consequence of extended family trying to cope with a child who has suffered brain damage from earlier abuse.

    Kelly says New Zealand has seen a steady 20-year climb in the number of children being admitted to hospital with head injuries caused by abuse.

    Having two “fatal or near-fatal” admissions in a week was unusual but Starship normally had several children at any time being treated for serious abuse injuries.

    “Children die, children suffer serious damage, and sometimes it is the result of a few seconds of uncontrollable rage,” he said.

    No one from CYF would be interviewed but in a statement, deputy chief executive Ray Smith said the service had improved.

    “Can we do more? Absolutely – and I’m committed to finding new and better ways to keep children and young people safe.”

    High hopes for baby scheme
    Every new parent in the Auckland area will be spoken to about the dangers of shaking babies in a new government-funded trial.

    Dr Patrick Kelly, a paediatrician at Starship children’s hospital, said there were great hopes the programme would save lives. In it parents will be spoken to “in the first few days after [the birth] to talk about the dangers of shaking a baby”.

    They would then have to sign a sheet of paper acknowledging the discussion and the ways to avoid abuse.

    If successful, the pilot scheme may be rolled out across the country. In the United States it has resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in abuse.

    Health professionals at Starship hope to have it running by the end of this year.

    The Shaken Baby Prevention Programme is being funded by the Ministry of Social Development, and is based on a programme developed by US professor Mark Dias.

    Kelly said the programme was suited to New Zealand’s independent midwife network. The trial was awaiting the appointment of key staff and development of material such as a video.

    Read full report

  • Love and death

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2756497/Love-and-death

    Love and death

    Sunday Star Times

    Last updated 05:00 16/08/2009
    coffin

    Photo: Brendon O’Hagan
    Many mothers struggle with stress or depression or even serious mental illness and psychosis, yet only the tiniest fraction of those will hurt their child. Is it possible to spot those women?

    THE day after the bodies of Kathleen Flowers and her son Dominic, eight, were found in their Auckland home on July 17, a neighbour was telling reporters how the 47-year-old was "a really good mum" who adored her children. At the double funeral of his brother and mother, Flowers' older son Alex said: "My mother was amazing. She would do whatever it took to make me happy..." But mourners also heard from celebrant Sally Avison that Flowers had been severely depressed and had attempted suicide twice before; that she took her own life that day while her husband James was at work; and that Dominic "did not choose his death". "We understand," said Avison, "the nature of his death was peaceful and gentle." The words are soothing; the reality brutal. Sometimes "good" mothers kill their children. Melissa Dorward was a "good" mother too. A friend told the Dominion Post newspaper that the 31-year-old, who was found dead on July 12 at her Hawke's Bay home alongside the bodies of her two young daughters, Keira, four, and Ellah, two, was "a good lady and a very, very good mum very involved with her children, especially sports clubs and other bits and pieces". Dorward was pregnant when she died, and had two older children, both sons. Professor Sandy Simpson is clinical director of the Auckland Regional Forensic Psychiatry Service. While he has no special knowledge of circumstances behind the Flowers and Dorward deaths, he says it is not out of the ordinary for mothers who kill while mentally ill which is the case in roughly a third of cases to be described as model parents. "For some, they're suicidal and deluded and come to feel they must kill themselves because of how bad the world is and they take the child with them because they believe to leave the child would be a horrendous thing... the symptoms of illness envelop the child and themselves."The ironic thing to get your head around is that the woman's judgement is so seriously troubled by illness that she thinks she's doing the right thing even though she's doing a horrendous thing." In 2000, Simpson was co-author of a study in which he and colleagues interviewed six women who had killed their child or children while mentally ill. Most of the women had been found not guilty on the grounds of insanity, and none had previously been child abusers; there was no history of repeated abuse, and all had a clear intent to kill. As the women recalled the circumstances leading up to the homicides, the theme of trying to be an ideal parent was common. They talked of the special efforts they made for their children, such as mincing steak instead of buying mince, putting aside time to play with their child to make up for taking them shopping, or of choosing to stay home with the children rather than working.
    "You know, I've always sort of wanted to be the perfect mother," said one interview subject. CHILD HOMICIDE IS rare, especially in developed countries, and homicide by mothers rarer still, with an average of around two cases per year in New Zealand. Between 1991 and 2000, 91 children in New Zealand died at the hands of 101 perpetrators. According to analysis by the government's chief social worker, Marie Connolly, 30% of killers were fathers, 24% were mothers, 18% were de facto parents, 18% were relatives or others known to the victims, and 10% were strangers or unknown killers. The most dangerous time for a child is its first 24 hours, during which time homicides are almost always at the hands of mothers. The risk of being killed diminishes steadily with age. Simpson says women who kill their children fall into three main groups (though there is some overlap between them). The largest group (over a third of cases) is women who are child abusers and end up killing a child without necessarily having wished them dead. This encompasses such sensational and appalling cases as the 1991 death of Delcelia Witika, two, at the hands of her mother Tania and Tania's partner Eddi Smith, or the fatal beating of three-year-old Ngatikaura Ngati in 2006 by his mother Maine Ngati and her partner Teusila Fa'asisila. All four perpetrators were found guilty of manslaughter. This kind of killing, says Simpson, is "really the tip of a rather large iceberg" of family violence. And while they attract most public outrage, they are in the sense the least mysterious. "Most parents know that there are moments when we all feel at the limits of our capacity to cope. [But] most parents of any wisdom put the child down gently and walk away until they regain their composure... The question is, what undermines people's ability to walk away?" The answers are familiar and gloomy: the more isolated a mother is, the poorer the parenting she received, the fewer emotional, personal and social resources she has, the greater the odds she will do the wrong thing. Such women, while probably stressed or even slightly depressed, are not typically mentally ill. A second, slightly smaller, category is "neonaticide", where a mother, usually a woman in her teens or early 20s, kills her baby in the hours after birth. "It's usually a concealed or denied pregnancy of a younger, quite isolated women who may be naive, often from strict religious background, who shouldn't have had sex and wound up pregnant," says Simpson. A recent example to receive media attention was that of the Pacific island student at Otago University who in May 2006 gave birth to a healthy baby girl in the toilet of her hall of residence, then placed the infant in a plastic bag and dropped it from a hostel window. She pleaded guilty to infanticide, a charge that recognises diminished intent due to psychological problems, and was sentenced to community work and supervision, which was later cancelled. And then there are the women suffering from major mental illness who make a clear if deluded decision to end their child's life. This makes up another third of maternal homicides. These women are likely to be older, to be married, and to have already had other children. They are also particularly likely to attempt an "extended suicide" killing themselves but first killing their child, "not out of anger or rage", as Simpson describes it, "but out of desperation and love". Particularly awful is the thought they may have wrestled with themselves for some time before killing. "It's usually been a build-up of desperation and feeling that's there's no other way," says Simpson. "Not uncommonly those thoughts were there for some days or weeks; and they were struggling to cope with it or to put them out of their mind." The danger sign, says Simpson, is the presence of psychosis. Psychotic symptoms where there are delusions or hallucinations and a sufferer loses contact with reality can arise from a range of disorders, including schizophrenia, manic episodes, or severe depression. "It doesn't matter necessarily which one of those diagnoses you have," says Simpson. "It's the delusions and hallucinations and disturbed emotional state that are the key bit, because they are the drivers for how you perceive the world and what you believe you must do." Many mothers struggle with stress or depression or even serious mental illness and psychosis, yet only the tiniest fraction of those will hurt their child. Is it possible to spot those women? Not exactly, says Simpson. Predicting an extremely rare event is usually impossible. "But what we do know is that if everybody with symptoms like this got the sort of care they should have, we will prevent many events." Effective treatments for psychotic depression start with medication, followed by talking therapies and the provision of broader support to the person and their family. "If we treated everyone who had major depression with psychotic symptoms, who is involved in a child-caring relationship, we wouldn't know which homicides we'd prevented, but we sure would do so." But there's the catch. When Simpson and colleagues interviewed New Zealand women who had killed children while mentally ill, they learnt that a number of them had been in touch with GPs or mental health services, but had felt unable to talk about their fear that they would harm their child. Others had discussed their fears but "the meaning of what they said wasn't fully understood". A wider US study of female fatal child abusers found some had expressed their fears but were told: "You're a good mother you wouldn't harm your child, would you?" The lesson, says Simpson, is that if a mother says she if fearful she will harm her child "it's a big deal". "A complaint like that isn't a sign that a child needs to be immediately uplifted; that's the thing that people fear and it's a big barrier to seeking the help that they need. "The best way to help is not to diminish that but to say, good on you for telling us how you feel, and let's see how we can support you."

  • Referendum 44% return so far – one week to go

    Two press releases:

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    The people are speaking!!

    Kiwi Party Leader and Referendum Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he was thrilled with the number of Kiwis making their voice heard in the referendum.


    The latest update from the Chief Electoral Office confirms that as at 5.00pm Thursday 13 August 1,330,900 votes had been received by the Chief Electoral Office vote-processing centre for the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”.

    “This is approx 44% of those registered, a significant increase over the first week and many more than normally received after two weeks of the Local Government postal elections. It definitely puts the referendum on track to be a better turnout than Local Body elections with a result that cannot be discredited,” said Mr Baldock.

    ends

    Larry Baldock
    021864833

    and

    MEDIA RELEASE
    14 August 2009
    Voters Loud and Clear on Referendum
    Family First NZ is welcoming news that 44% of voters have now returned their ballot papers for the anti-smacking referendum.
    “It is quite evident that NZ’ers understand the question, want their say on the issue, and expect the politicians to listen,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
    “44% of registered voters is only just short of the turnout for the recent Mt Albert by-election (47%) and most City Councils, Mayors and Community Boards have been elected by less than 44% in the last 2 local body elections. It is quite evident that NZ’ers feel strongly on this issue and still have another full week to vote.”
    “The attempts by politicians to attack the question and to threaten to disregard the result of the Referendum has actually had the opposite effect to what they possibly intended. It has rarked up voters because they feel like it’s more of the previous ‘we know better than you and we’re not listening’ attitude. NZ’ers hoped that we had moved on from that approach.”
    “Because of this message, it is even more important that voters return their voting forms and send a strong message to the politicians on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    ENDS
    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Mob. 027 55 555 42


  • The Debate; Bradford vs Baldock 13 August 9-10pm

    The Debate; Bradford vs Baldock
    Thanks to everyone who sent an encouraging note re the ‘Open Letter to Sue’. That feedback was really appreciated. My apologies for any delay in getting replies out so far.

    Just a quick update on developments on the debate so far.

    Radio Waatea have organised a debate tonight (Thursday 13 August) with Sue Bradford and I for one hour from 9pm. You can check out the frequency or how to listen on line if you are outside their broadcast area by going to their website,  http://www.waatea603am.co.nz/

    The plan is to also take questions from listeners after the debate and their free calling number is 0800 4 603 603 for those who live out of Auckland, and 257 0603 for those living in Auckland.

    I have also been contacted by CTV in Christchurch who are keen to host a televised debate for one hour. At the moment they are making contact with Sue. If it goes ahead it will be able to be broadcast also on Sky channels and YouTube.

    More information on Friday after we hear the latest update on the numbers from the Electoral Commission.

    Till then,

    Larry Baldock

  • Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE
    12 August 2009
    Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse
    Family First NZ is repeating its call for an official inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ. The call comes after the death of a 2-year old child in Kaitaia, the investigation into the critical injuries suffered by a Whangarei toddler, and an admission by police of “unacceptable” delays and insufficient investigation into child abuse cases – especially in the Wairarapa.
    “The 80% plus of NZ’ers who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First. “They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties.”
    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues.
    It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”
    “Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with 14 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”
    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    HALL OF SHAME
    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007
    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa
    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu
    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury
    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008
    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008
    10. 16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008
    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009
    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009
    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009
    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09
    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588462&pnum=0

    Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    4:00AM Tuesday Aug 04, 2009

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

    It is an extreme rarity for a Politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke’s Bay Today

    Your Views Have you changed your habits since the smacking law? Tell us your stories

    Parliament tends to attract those that are unable to ferret out the principles of important issues. The Electoral Finance Bill and the Microchipping Bill are two good examples of bits of subjective legislation that should have stayed submerged.

    Members of Parliament know that they can get away with many things because they have denied the public the means to direct them on issues important to them. The Privy Council as the last means of appeal was abolished by a government that wanted its legislation to be interpreted in a particular way and despite the overwhelming number of submissions against this, decided that is what it wanted anyway.

    The referendum on smacking has come about because ordinary New Zealanders and many decent mums and dads have felt that the law change was wrong. Support for the original law has hovered around 80 per cent and it comes as no surprise to the cynical amongst us that Prime Minister John Key is not interested in changing the new law.

    A disrespect for democracy is a hallmark of many politicians. Although they depend on it to get power, once it has been gained they flaunt it with impunity.

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case.

    This law change was sold on the pretext that it would stop the senseless murder and physical abuse of infants. Only a fool would expect a law to be able to stop everyone committing such acts.

    Sentences of prison do not stop murders nor will they, nor have they stopped the young and helpless dying from the acts of others.

    The law now states that parents cannot use physical discipline for correction. If this is a good principle, then it should also apply to adults and that time out should also not be used for correction for children.

    The penalty for a breach of this law is intended to correct the attitude. It is not a good principle but a bad ideal.

    My two boys can be quite hard to manage sometimes and the rare times I’ve had to administer some physical correction, I have seen them want to become closer to me after their boundaries had become re-established.

    Those that argue that smacking is violence show a simplistic grasp of the subject. Society has rules that apply to different contexts that permit “violence”. For example martial arts, contact sports and self-defence.

    It has long been accepted that parents have responsibility for their own children and the law change has now taken away some of that responsibility.

    When John Key says the legislation is working – I worry. If I were to say my car is working when someone expresses an interest in buying it, no one would for a second think that I meant “working well”.

    Is it working because ordinary parents are now criminals? Is it working to prevent children being shaken and murdered by step-parents? Is a smack abuse?

    These are important questions and left to politicians, they would remain unanswered.

    The test for the police of “in the public’s best interests” is a subjective nightmare of inconsistency.

    The New Zealand police have lost the respect of many people including myself due to preferential treatment for Helen Clark’s misdemeanours, pursuing cases where the evidence was shaky and wasting resources prosecuting shopkeepers who tried to defend themselves. If we can’t trust the police and we certainly cannot trust politicians then what authority can we trust?

    A woman I know spent nine months carrying her baby, with morning sickness in the first trimester, and toxaemia in the final few weeks. The baby’s head was too big for her birth canal and a caesarean with epidural was needed.

    That baby woke three or four times nightly for over six months causing countless lost hours of sleep. When that baby grew into a 10-year-old and one day went too far, with the woman already stressed out, she slapped her child on the face. Under this legislation, she could have become a criminal.

    In summary, the new law prevents smacks for correction without any basis, has a test that could never be absolute and objective, and was meant to stop deaths. In reality the architects of this law were uncomfortable with parents giving their children physical discipline and wanted to impose their ideals on others.

    Excessive cases of discipline were prosecuted before the law change and will continue to be under any law change.

    This referendum provides a limited opportunity for the public to voice their concern and if enough people support a law change then only the most resistant politicians will ignore their voice.

    * Phil Jackson lives in Auckland.

  • EDITORIAL: Smacking law misses real target

    GARTH McVICAR – Sensible Sentencing Trust | 4th August 2009

    Child abuse is the scourge of New Zealand; it is like a plague on the horizon, hanging over us like a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode.

    When will the next case occur and how horrific will the child’s injuries be?

    Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    That is the question Hawke’s Bay people are being asked in the referendum.

    Hitting a child with a pipe or a piece of 4×2 was never allowed and the perpetrators should always feel the full force of the law _ but banning smacking hasn’t and will never stop the person who would commit such an act.

    Let’s face it; the calibre of person who would do such a thing probably can’t read the law, anyway. And if they could they wouldn’t give a toss! Most of them only get a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket, anyway. I want child abuse stopped.

    But Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law has not done that, in fact child abuse is as rampant today as it was before the legislation changed.

    We should be encouraging good parents, but because a parent uses a smack to enforce a request or directive does that mean they are a bad parent? New Zealand has deteriorated from being THE safest country in the western world to now having a totally unacceptable -and escalating _ level of violent crime.

    In my opinion two things have been responsible for that:

    1) The politically correct nonsense that has destroyed the morals and values that made New Zealand great _ and safe.

    2) Weak-kneed politicians and lawmakers who have sanctioned this disastrous politically correct experiment.

    Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law is just another nail in the coffin of good commonsense parenting.

    Children who misbehave should be disciplined and taught boundaries; it should be up to that parent how they administer that discipline.

    Accountability, responsibility, respect and discipline may be considered old-fashioned but countries that are returning to traditional “old-school” morals and values are the countries that are now experiencing massive reductions in violent crime.

    Violent crime in New Zealand is still escalating alarmingly and banning smacking will be like all the other politically correct nonsense that has been forced upon us.

    It will have the opposite effect of what the well-meaning but seriously misguided instigators expected.

    The ban on smacking will ultimately lead to the building of more prisons as the impact of a totally undisciplined generation comes back to haunt us.