Family Integrity

Year: 2009

Human Rights Commission Acknowledges Uncertainty of Anti-Smacking Law

MEDIA RELEASE

26 May 2009

Human Rights Commission Acknowledges Uncertainty of Anti-Smacking Law

Family First NZ says that the Human Rights Commission has acknowledged the uncertainty of the anti-smacking law.

In response to a formal complaint by Family First NZ that the anti-smacking law is vague and uncertain, the Human Rights Commission has acknowledged the potential uncertainty of the law but was not convinced that the earlier version of section 59 ‘provided any better guidance than the present legislation’.

“This is despite agreeing with Family First that ‘individuals must be able to regulate their conduct with a reasonable degree of certainty as to the legal consequences of acting one way rather than another’, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “They still prefer the amendment due mainly to its adherence to UN requirements.”

“Recent research by Curia Marketing Research found widespread confusion about the effect of the law. 55% of the respondents said that smacking was always illegal, 31% said it wasn’t, and 14% didn’t know. A recent Families Commission report showed that immigrant families are confused by the anti-smacking law and see smacking as a viable option for correcting their children.”

The Commission argues that parents who disagree with any prosecution can judicially review the police for a decision to prosecute.

“But most parents would be completely unaware of this option, and would be skeptical that it was likely to offer any solution.”

Parents have been given conflicting messages by the promoters of the law. Legal opinions have contradicted each other, and on top of that there is ‘police discretion’ but not CYF discretion to investigate. Parents have a right to a clear and precise law. This current law has created confusion. Good parents are being victimised and the real causes of child abuse ignored,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Parenting is not for cowards but this law is making it pretty scary.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

May 26, 2009
Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty

MEDIA RELEASE

20 May 2009

Smacking Equated with Torture and Death Penalty

Family First NZ says that the United Nations Committee on Torture has equated a kiwi parent using a smack for the purpose of correction as a form of torture, and compared the anti-smacking law to the abolition of the death penalty.

“This report has been promoted by groups supporting the anti-smacking law including Plunket, Barnardos, the Families Commission and EPOCH and shows a view of parenting completely removed from reality,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“To link a parent who corrects a child using a smack with torture, the death penalty, and tasering of violent offenders is both breathtaking and insulting, and shows why these groups have failed to get the huge majority of NZ parents on side in this debate.”

“They argue that the anti-smacking law has been introduced to meet the recommendations made by both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee on Torture.”

“This simply reinforces the overriding concern that the anti-smacking law had nothing to do with child abuse and was more to do with an ideologically flawed and UN-driven agenda.”

“But 80% of NZ’ers knew that the anti-smacking law would have no affect on child abuse anyway,” says Bob McCoskrie. “It’s time we tackled the real causes.”

Full report: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-7S49PY?OpenDocument

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

May 20, 2009
Ruling on scan offer before abortions

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2390236/Ruling-on-scan-offer-before-abortions

Ruling on scan offer before abortions

By EMILY WATT – The Dominion Post

Women should be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound scan of their baby before they decide to abort it, the Health and Disability Commissioner says.

Anti-abortion group Right to Life complained to the commissioner after finding four district health boards Auckland, Waikato, Wairarapa and Canterbury did not offer women the chance to view the scan before going ahead with an abortion. Waikato DHB said it was an “infringement of the patient’s rights” to offer it.

Commissioner Ron Paterson said any pregnant woman should be told of their right to view an ultrasound, and it was up to them whether they did or not.

It is a debate that is raging in the United States, where a number of states are considering passing laws that would force women to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Some want them to listen to a fetal heartbeat as well. Critics have labelled the proposals “emotional blackmail”.

New Zealand’s abortion rates are high, with more than one in five known pregnancies in New Zealand aborted. In 2007 the most recent statistics available 18,380 abortions were done.

The High Court made a landmark ruling last year that expressed “powerful misgivings” about the lawfulness of many abortions. That decision is due to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal next week.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said offering women the opportunity to view an ultrasound scan would reduce abortions. He said American research showed when women considering an abortion were given the opportunity to view a scan, a large number of them chose not to go ahead.

Right to Life last year canvassed 13 DHBs to see whether they offer women considering abortion the chance to view ultrasound scans, which are taken to help determine the week of the pregnancy. Four did not.

Commissioner Ron Paterson has written to Waikato District Health board chief executive Craig Climo saying it was a woman’s choice whether or not to view the scan.

“She needs the information that she has the ability to view the scan to make this choice,” he wrote. Health Waikato said it supported the commissioner’s advice.Mr Paterson told The Dominion Post his comments “should not be misconstrued as being about abortion”.

“Most pregnant women undergoing an ultrasound scan would expect to be told that they can see the scan image if they wish to. There is nothing novel about confirming that the law entitles them to do so.”

He said in some cases it would be “distressing and inappropriate” to ask a woman if she wanted to see her scan.

Mr Orr now wants the abortion consent form changed so women confirm they were offered the chance to see the ultrasound.

Health Minister Tony Ryall said it was “a matter that should be addressed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee and I have directed Mr Orr to them”.

May 6, 2009

Family Integrity #449 — U4L, Progress update and important Prayer Request

30 April 2009 8:42 a.m.

FYI

Craig & Barbara Smith

From: Craig Hill
Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2009 7:32 a.m.
Subject: U4L, Progress update and important Prayer Request

Hi All,

Prayer Alert for your information,

Also, firstly, a quick update on Unity for Liberty. We are currently working on modifying this web site and you should see changes within the month.

And secondly, the “Liberty for the Unborn” website will being renamed “Liberty for the Pre-born”, graphics are being changed at the moment. The site has been a long time in the wings but will be operational in the very near future.

Thanks
Craig

Please read carefully

PRAYER ALERT!!

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) is appealing the recommendations made by

the High Court judge, Justice Miller, at the Right to Life court case 9^th June 2008.

Justice Miller “found that there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions

authorised by certifying consultants.”

Right to Life will seek to have the Court uphold the finding of Justice Miller that “the

ASC has a statutory duty to hold certifying consultants accountable for the lawfulness of

many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”

Right to Life has cross appealed and is also seeking to “have the Court of Appeal overturn the

decision of Justice Miller to deny the status of the unborn child as a person entitled to receive

the protection of the bill of Rights Act.” Section 8, “Right Not to Be Deprived of Life”, states:

“No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are

consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Under current legislation in NZ the unborn child does not become a human being until it is

born. Right to Life sees this court case as an “unprecendented opportunity to establish in

law, that the unborn child is a human being from conception, endowed at conception

with human rights, the foundation being the right to life.”

Lawyer, Ian, has prepared “a brilliant 40 page submission in support of the personhood of

the unborn child.” (Right to Life)

The Crown on behalf of the ASC opposes the legal recognition of the unborn child as

a person endowed with human rights.

Details of the up-coming court case:

Date: 12-13 May, ‘09

Place: Court of Appeal, Wellington

Pro-life lawyers: Peter and Ian

Crown Counsel: someone from the Crown Law Office

Judges: 3 person panel

Regards,
Craig Hill
021746113
www.unityforliberty.net.nz

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

May 4, 2009
Family Integrity #448 — IMPORTANT Email on Swine Flu – Please read ASAP

Dear Friends,

We know Ty Bollinger personally and have read his book. He lived in Invercargill and in Queenstown for a while. He does a tremendous amount of research across many fields. Don’t just read the link article…watch the youtube video on the same page. It is just as shocking.

http://matrixnewsnetwork.com/news/health-news/1754-swine-flu-potential-pandemic-or-beta-test.html

Craig & Barbara Smith

G’day Folks,

I just wrote an article on the swine flu. Very important info.

Here is a LINK to the article. Please take a few minutes to read it.

God bless,
Ty

—
Ty M. Bollinger
http://www.CancerTruth.net

NOTE: I am not a doctor. The information contained in this email is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment, or advice of a qualified licensed professional. The facts presented herein are offered as information only, not medical advice, and in no way should anyone consider that I am practicing medicine. Any statements regarding alternative cancer treatments have not been evaluated by the FDA.

WARNING: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection………. if anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

“A nation of sheep results in a government of wolves”

April 29, 2009
Family Integrity #447 — Where we may be headed

Gidday all,

This 8 min presentation about the USA equivalent of CYPFs in NZ shows what we are most likely headed for. It was sent to me by Ruby Harrold-Claesson, the Swedish lawyer who was here for the Section 59 debates. She says this is just what happens in Sweden all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TcDTJlPWbE

Regards,

Craig & Barbara Smith

Family Integrity

PO Box 9064

Palmerston North 4441

New Zealand

Ph. +64 6 357-4399

craig@hef.org.nz

www.familyintegrity.org.nz

April 29, 2009
Family Integrity #446 — Thought you may be interested…

Sent: Monday, 13 April 2009 3:53 p.m.

Find below a link to a new 10 minute Youtube video, entitled ‘The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4

Its aim is to remove any confusion people may have about the law.

Clear, concise, and unemotional, it puts the issues plainly.

Please watch this for your own benefit and feel free to forward this email – or the link – on to as many people as you like, and encourage them to do the same.

Thanks

April 29, 2009
Family Integrity #445 — Flamin’ Madhouse

27 March 2009 7:28 p.m.

Dear Everyone,

I’ve pasted below a news article that exemplifies many of the vast multitude of things wrong with the state’s schooling institutions. I’m letting off a bit of steam because I am so angry at this rotten system that systematically practises institutionalised child abuse by teachers and administrators who are so desensitised to it, they will round on parents and bully them if they dare question what goes on. Many of these lousy schools are in blatant denial, refusing to admit they have a problem. The most amazing thing is that parents and even doctors and nurses will often side with the school against the victimised child, even in the face of bruises, cuts, crying themselves to sleep at night and having vomiting fits the next morning at the thought of returning to the place of torture.

This week has been amazing. I’ve had so many phone calls and emails from parents wanting to start home education because of the bullying their children have suffered for months, sometimes for years. One mum felt she didn’t want to send the child to school since he was so tender at age 5. She considered home schooling, but decided it was too radical a step. Now, at age 6, her son is toughed up and so much more sophisticated as everyone typically said he needed to become…and he is also defiled because of the sexual abuse he suffered at school. She now forever regrets the day she ever trusted him to the state. Another mum’s 10-year-old has significant physical disabilities which require a full-time aide. But the boy has had enough of the school-supplied aides and the constant teasing, as the nature of his disability is somewhat personal. He would prefer his mum, but the several schools approached will not have it as they not only dislike parents observing the reality of the classroom, they say it causes children to become too dependent upon their parents! And besides, they say, the boy stinks (due to his disability), and they’d prefer it if she would find another school. And so the boy refuses to enter the school grounds, the parent is begging them to let her instead of aides attend to her son’s needs, but they won’t let her, and she is now being threatened by a Group Special Education person with police and CYFPS and truancy officers if the child is not in school immediately!

It’s a flamin’ madhouse!

This article below has a typical school response to bullying. “Oh, it’s only girls being girls, boys being boys. It’ll blow over.” So when the girl spirals downhill and hits bottom, it turns out she has parents willing to do something: sue the school. Good on them, I say! Man, has it sobered up the school! The principal all of a sudden comes out of denial and makes a statement most principals would confess to only once they’d been stretched on the rack: “It does not matter what a school does, it can never be resolved completely.” This woman admitted that it is a permanent, on-going, unstoppable problem. We got a straight honest answer at last. I mean, this girl was bullied even after she left the school…by text messages!

The very threat of a legal suit also flushed out the fascinating, yet totally unknown fact, that “it is a statutory requirement for schools to take all reasonable steps to prevent bullying from occurring while pupils are at school,” and that “Failure to take such steps could result in criminal prosecution and hefty fines.” If all parents of school-abused children would simply threaten to sue the school, bullying would be slashed. A few successful suits, some bullies taken down, and the problem would recede way out onto the horizon.

But worst of all is the so-called Children’s Commissar, Cindy Kiro, criticising the parents for considering such an option, but uselessly offering no course of action in its place.

If you don’t know what is going on in these institutions of systematic child abuse called state schools, you need to find out. And then tell your friends and rellies to get their children OUT of those places as soon as possible. All I have to do is read the education column of Stuff.co.nz…it’s enough to make your toenails curl. But I’ve been reading it and other sources for over 20 years…I have stacks of clippings and e-articles of the most horrendous goings on, that just don’t stop, no matter how hard the schools try to cover up…and don’t fool yourself…they go to great lengths to slam the lid on any negative publicity.

Get yourself a subscription to TEACH Bulletin http://hef.org.nz/2007/teach-bulletin-1yr/. It’s only $9 lousy bucks for 6 issues a year and almost always has a good sampling of the latest in state school violence, as well as other political and statist trends in relation to schools, home education and parenting. Get your friends and neighbours a subscription, too, for it will open their eyes. We’ve got to be informed and stop pretending everything is all right. We’ve got to get children out of the schools, and we’ve got to embolden parents to speak up when their children are being abused by the system.

TEACH Bulletin is available from us at:

Craig & Barbara Smith

Home Education Foundation

PO Box 9064

Palmerston North 4441

New Zealand

Ph. +64 6 357-4399

craig@hef.org.nz

www.hef.org.nz

Legal option after bullying

By NATHAN BEAUMONT – The Dominion Post

Last updated 05:00 21/03/2009

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2281076/Legal-option-after-bullying

A family is considering legal action against a school after a girl was bullied for so long that she lost 12 kilograms, spent three weeks in hospital and had to move to another school.

The children’s commissioner has described the case as “completely unacceptable” and said she would be prepared to investigate.

And a lawyer is warning school boards that they could be prosecuted by parents whose children suffer emotional harm as a result of bullying.

The parents of the 15-year-old victim said St Mary’s College in Wellington did not do enough to stop the ordeal, which started in August 2007.

Though the bully had written an apology letter to the victim, her family said it was still seeking answers from the school board.

The victim informed the school counsellor when the bullying started, but was told it was just “girls being girls” and would “blow over”, her mother says.

But it did not blow over. Instead the victim said she endured taunts and rumours for a further seven months at school.

The girl’s mother said her daughter developed an eating disorder, lost 12 kilograms and spent three weeks in hospital recovering. The claim was backed up in a letter from a clinical psychologist that was sent to the school.

“After assessment it was clear that [her] weight loss was not due to concerns about her appearance but rather was as a tool to help her maintain control of herself during an episode of bullying by girls at school.”

The parents removed their daughter from the school, but said the taunts continued, with bullying text messages.

St Mary’s principal Mary Cook said the school did everything in its power to deal with the situation.

“The issue with bullying is that it is very difficult to deal with and isolate. It does not matter what a school does, it can never be resolved completely. We do everything we possibly can.”

Meanwhile, a lawyer has warned that it is a statutory requirement for schools to take all reasonable steps to prevent bullying from occurring while pupils are at school.

“Failure to take such steps could result in criminal prosecution and hefty fines,” John Miller said.

Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said it would be a “sad day” if bullying victims started taking legal action.

“It’s not a route we want to go down, that’s the American way. It is an option, but it is the least constructive option.”

The victim’s mother said the family was keen to explore legal action. “Definitely, we would be keen to look into that area.

“All schools have different approaches to bullying, but St Mary’s seems to be: keep it quiet and deny, deny, deny.”

LETTER TO VICTIM

Letter from the bully to the 15-year-old victim after she left St Mary’s School.

“I don’t want you to have to leave all your friends because of all this shit. I am so sorry for everything. You have no idea how bad I feel. I would do anything to take back what’s happened and everything I have said and done, not only to you, but your friends.

“I know that we will never be friends, but I want us to be anything but enemies. I am so sorry for everything that has happened in the past year. I hope you get better soon and that this letter means even a little something to you.”

April 29, 2009
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59

A brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!

April 15, 2009