Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Po Bronson

    For decades, research on spanking was challenged by the lack of a control group to compare against – almost all kids (90+%) had been spanked at least once, at some time in their early lives. New research shows that now up to 25% of kids are never spanked, so it’s a fair question: How are they turning out? Are they turning out better? Surprisingly, they’re not.

    In NurtureShock, we described some extensive cross-ethnic and international research on spanking by Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge.

    Their data suggested that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use. To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never—when combined with losing your temper—can be worse than spanking frequently.* But what about the third option: not spanking them at all? Unfortunately, there’s been little study of this, because children who’ve never been spanked aren’t easy to find. Most kids receive physical discipline at least once in their life. But times are changing, and parents today have numerous alternatives to spanking. The result is that kids are spanked less often overall, and kids who’ve never been spanked are becoming a bigger slice of the pie in long-term population studies. One of those new population studies underway is called Portraits of American Life. It involves interviews of 2,600 people and their adolescent children every three years for the next 20 years. Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe is working with the first wave of data on the teens. It turns out that almost a quarter of these teens report they were never spanked. So this is a perfect opportunity to answer a very simple question: are kids who’ve never been spanked any better off, long term? Gunnoe’s summary is blunt: “I didn’t find that in my data.” The study asked teens how old they were when their last spanking occurred, and how often they would get spanked as a child. That was cross-referenced against the data on bad outcomes we might fear spanking could lead to years later: antisocial behavior, early sexual activity, physical violence, and depression. But Gunnoe went further. She also looked at many good outcomes we might want for our teens, such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up. Studies of corporal punishment almost never look at good outcomes, but Gunnoe wanted to really tease out the differences in these kids. What she discovered was another shocker: those who’d been spanked just when they were young—ages 2 to 6—were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked. On almost every measure. A separate group of teens had been spanked until they were in elementary school. Their last spanking had been between the ages of 7 and 11. These teens didn’t turn out badly, either. Compared with the never-spanked, they were slightly worse off on negative outcomes, but a little better off on the good outcomes. Only the teenagers who were still being spanked clearly showed problems. Gunnoe is now looking at how parenting styles might explain these patterns—especially the mystery of why the never-spanked are doing worse than expected. Gunnoe doesn’t know what she’ll find, but my thoughts jump immediately to the work of Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, whom we wrote about in NurtureShock. Schoppe-Sullivan found that children of progressive dads were acting out more in school. This was likely because the fathers were inconsistent disciplinarians; they were emotionally uncertain about when and how to punish, and thus they were reinventing the wheel every time they had to reprimand their child. And there was more conflict in their marriage over how best to parent, and how to divide parenting responsibilities. I admit to taking a leap here, but if the progressive parents are the ones who never spank (or at least there’s a large overlap), then perhaps the consistency of discipline is more important than the form of discipline. In other words, spanking regularly isn’t the problem; the problem is having no regular form of discipline at all. _____________ * As we wrote in our book, even in cultures were spanking is more common, its use is still very rare (perhaps once or twice in a kid's entire lifetime), and we aren't talking about severe beatings of a child, but a swat across the behind. Additionally, the work of Dodge and Lansford (who remain adamantly against corporal punishment) suggests that, in societies that consider spanking unacceptable, parents still spank—but they hit in anger—when they've lost control. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/12/30/never-been-spanked.aspx

  • Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 January 2010

    Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

    “Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

    “Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

    “For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

    “Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Pro-Spanking (Smacking) Studies May Have Global Effect

    Pro-Spanking Studies May Have Global Effect

    Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 11:11 AM

    By: Theodore Kettle

    Two recent analyses – one psychological, the other legal – may debunk lenient modern parenting the way the Climategate e-mail scandal has short circuited global warming alarmism.

    A study entailing 2,600 interviews pertaining to corporal punishment, including the questioning of 179 teenagers about getting spanked and smacked by their parents, was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    Gunnoe’s findings, announced this week: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.”

    Those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

    Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.

    A key focus of the work of Jason M. Fuller of the University of Akron Law School was Sweden, which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline and is in many respects “an ideal laboratory to study spanking bans,” according to Fuller.

    Since the spanking ban, child abuse rates in Sweden have exploded over 500 percent, according to police reports. Even just one year after the ban took effect, and after a massive government public education campaign, Fuller found that “not only were Swedish parents resorting to pushing, grabbing, and shoving more than U.S. parents, but they were also beating their children twice as often.”

    After a decade of the ban, “rates of physical child abuse in Sweden had risen to three times the U.S. rate” and “from 1979 to 1994, Swedish children under seven endured an almost six-fold increase in physical abuse,” Fuller’s analysis revealed.

    “Enlightened” parenting also seems to have produced increased violence later. “Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.”

    Since Sweden, dozens of countries have banned parental corporal punishment, like Germany, Italy, and in 2007 New Zealand, where using force to correct children entails full criminal penalties, and where a mother cannot even legally take her child’s hand to bring him where he refuses to go.

    The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, meanwhile, challenges laws permitting any physical punishment of children and has called on all governments in the world to prohibit every form of physical discipline, including within the family.

    In the U.S., the National Association of Social Workers has declared that all physical punishment of children has harmful effects and should be stopped; social workers are being trained to advocate against physical discipline when they visit homes. And in 2007, San Francisco Bay area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber unsuccessfully proposed legislation imposing a California state ban on spanking children under the age of four.

    Contrary to popular belief, the pediatrician and leftist political activist Dr. Benjamin Spock did not popularize parental leniency. In early editions of his famously bestselling book, “Baby and Child Care,” Spock did not rule out spanking, (although he did later); on the contrary, Spock called for “clarity and consistency of the parents’ leadership,” considered kindness and devotion to be a necessity for parents who spank, and believed that the inability to be firm was “the commonest problem of parents in America.”

    Spock’s 21st century disciples, however, depart from his original precepts. DrSpock.com, which “embodies the strength and identity of world-renowned pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, providing parents with the latest expert content from today’s leading authorities in parenting,” and embraces Dr. Spock’s “philosophy and vision,” declares that “Punishment is not the key to discipline.”

    The parental guidance website contends that “Spanking teaches children that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right.” DrSpock.com concludes that “The American tradition of spanking may be one reason that there is much more violence in our country than in any other comparable nation.”

    Of like mind is the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose official policy says: “Despite its common acceptance, spanking is a less effective strategy than timeout or removal of privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.”

    The academy adds: “The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.”

    “Timeout,” a widely popularized alternative to physical discipline in which a child is separated from a situation or environment after misbehaving, was devised in the 1960’s by behavioral researcher Arthur Staats as “a very mild punishment, the removal from a more reinforcing situation.”

    Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.

    Nor is she alone in her conclusions. Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.”

    She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.

    As in climate change, politicians all over the world seem out of touch with the most rigorous science regarding parental discipline. The newest research could constitute powerful ammunition to parents rights activists seeking to reverse the global trend of intrusive governments muscling themselves between the rod and the child.

    From:

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

  • Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 January 2010

    Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use.

    “Previous research has not been able to compare children who have been smacking with those who have never been smacked, because children who’ve never been smacked were hard to find as most kids received physical discipline at least once in their life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But due to the pervading anti-smacking ideology, this has changed.”

    “Yet this study found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been smacked. Children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined. Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.”

    Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children. Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

    This follows earlier research from Duke University which showed that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use because parents are less agitated and more consistent.

    “This is more evidence to go alongside previous NZ-based research from Professor Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine and from Otago University showing that light smacking is not child abuse, is actually beneficial when used in a positive and loving family environment, and should definitely not be a criminal offence in this country,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to change their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology.  Yet these techniques are proven to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “It’s time the government listened to the thorough and balanced research on smacking and the concerns of parents and grandparents raising or who have raised great kids, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of government funded groups which should be focusing on actual child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 December 2009

    Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    WORK STILL TO BE DONE TO GIVE PARENTS CERTAINTY ON SMACKING LAW…

    Family First NZ has released its annual list of the top family issues to be tackled, and heading the list for 2010 is the protection of children from ‘corporate pedophilia’ and reducing the ‘raunch culture’ which is harming the self-esteem, body image and academic performance of young people – especially young girls.

    “The recent marketing of sexualised shirts by Cotton On Kids to be worn by babies, the provocative Little Losers line targeted at young teenagers by clothing store Jay Jays, sexually charged billboard advertising in public places, and graphic sexual music videos, dolls, and tween magazines and websites which encourage young people to look older and act older are examples of marketers crossing the line of what is acceptable and appropriate for our communities and for the protection of our children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “A premature interest in a sexy appearance, an obsession about body image as a teenager, and an undermining of the social prohibition against seeing children as sexual objects and sexually attractive, are all huge warning flags that profits are currently more important than protecting the wellbeing of our children.”

    Also in the list is a call to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the real causes of child abuse, and a number of measures to recognise and respect the role of parents, including parental notification laws and amending the anti-smacking law to give parents certainty under the law.

    The list calls for the urgent establishment of an independent CYF Complaints Authority, and amending the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels.

    “There is still huge work to be done on reducing our child abuse rates, but also making sure that CYF and other statutory agencies don’t overstep their levels of intervention. The government is also hoping that the smacking debate will disappear, but while parents are trying to raise law abiding productive members of society, the debate will not be going away. It will become an election issue if the government doesn’t act to amend this law.”

    “The current government is attempting to stay clear of anything that might suggest social engineering,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “But there are a number of social issues which this government must tackle if they wish to be respected by parents trying to raise children in an increasingly difficult culture which undermines their efforts.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    FULL LIST

    1. Laws and Codes of Advertising to protect children/young people from sexualised images and marketing of sexual messages towards children

    The Australian Childhood Foundation released a report in Apr 2007, which showed that problem sexual behaviour in children as young as six, often appears to be influenced by sex imagery in the media. This is challenging the previously held view that most child sex abusers were responding to having being abused themselves.

    And a recent report by the American Psychological Association points to the dangers when sexualisation leads to girls viewing themselves as objects and having an unhealthy preoccupation with appearance. The pressure can lead to depression, eating disorders, and poor academic performance.

    Advertisements for kids’ products should not include sexual imagery, imply that children are sexual beings, or imply that owning a product will enhance a child’s sexuality.

    As prominent Australian psychologist Steve Biddulph said, “…smarter parents protect their kids, but as the media environment and the shopping malls deteriorate, the kids with not very bright parents have their mental healthy and sexual health degraded.”

    There is also research suggesting that pedophilia and child pornography is being driven by the sexualisation of children in mainstream marketing.

    2. Parental notification

    A parent is required to sign a note giving permission for a child to go on a school trip to the zoo but does not have to be notified or give consent if the same daughter wants to use contraception or have an abortion, and can actually be sneaked off for the procedure by Family Planning or the school nurse. Some young girls have been targeted for vaccines by family doctors without the knowledge of the parents.

    If parents are expected to support and raise their children to be law-abiding and positive members of our society, then these same parents should be kept informed and involved in the ongoing welfare of that child, and not undermined by laws which isolate children from their parents.

    3. Establishing a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse

    We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by the various UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports.

    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 at least 18 deaths since the law was passed. Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.

    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

    4. Amending the anti-smacking law to provide certainty for parents

    The Prime Minister has confused parents by saying recently that a light smack is completely ok and should not be treated as a criminal offence, yet only a few months earlier admitting that the effect of the law is that smacking is a criminal offence.

    The recent unbalanced and superficial review was another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.

    A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment – the Boscawen amendment. The politicians should demand a conscience vote on this issue, and the law should give parents certainty as to whether they are parenting within the law or not.

    5. Establishing an Independent CYF Complaints Authority

    Families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers have no independent body to appeal to. This is grossly unfair when families are at risk, ignored, or are being ripped apart often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker.

    An independent CYF Complaints Authority is also in the best interests of social workers as it will provide an independent body to ensure that appropriate policy and procedures have been followed. This will result in public confidence and accountability for actions and decisions by CYF workers.

    There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.

    6. Amend the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels

    The politicians gave local communities a ‘hospital pass’ when they changed the law and left the local councils the impossible job of balancing the requirements of the law with the huge concerns of families. They cannot now ignore the pleas from communities throughout NZ who are saying that the decriminalisation of prostitution has been a spectacular failure.

    The opposition to a residential based brothel in the Wellington area, opposition to a brothel in the main street of Dannevirke, opposition to brothels being zoned for the main shopping areas in Lower Hutt, opposition to a sex parlour operating in the same building as a preschool in Wellington, Hamilton City Council’s successful restriction on residential brothels, and attempts by the Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution, shows that communities are not accepting the liberalised laws.


    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Lord Monckton addresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming

  • Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    MEDIA RELEASE 16 December 2009

    Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’

    “Why were we never consulted” – Parents

    We, the parents who were accused of misrepresenting the facts of our smacking cases and therefore misleading Family First, are refuting the claims, and reject the findings of the report commissioned by the Prime Minister.

    Why were we never consulted in the process? It appears that our accounts of what happened and the supporting documentation we provided, including court, police and CYF documents, to Family First has been ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow our voice to be heard.

    The report contains glaring errors including

    • misrepresentation of basic facts,
    • contains alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive,
    • fails to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults
    • reports a case where the police prosecution was dismissed by the court, yet the report still argues that all police action was appropriate
    • fails to address a number of cases where parents were investigated by police or CYF for erroneous claims of smacking made by passers-by or the children themselves ringing 111

    In one of the cases, the parent involved says

    CYF fully acknowledge that their handling of this case around alleged smacking was inappropriate and breached good practice.  They have apologized, both in written form and in person, and freely acknowledge that their failure to adhere to good practice caused undue stress to the family.  Although it was certainly appropriate to investigate, the separation of the family for 72 hours should never have happened.

    In another case, the parent involved says

    The report has included material which paints me as abusing my child yet that evidence was never accepted in court, was only alleged, and the child even renounced those claims to CYF and said the complaint was made up – yet I am still painted as guilty.

    As parents referred to in the report, we believe that we should have had the opportunity to respond to the claims made by the police and CYF. This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides.

    portunity to respond to the claims made by the

    We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area.

    Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns.

    We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts.

    The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.

    Signed

    “John and Sue” – pg 27

    Parent – “Father charged for one smack” – pg 24

    Parent – “Father charged for shoulder shake” – p21

    “John and Mary” – pg 23

    “Tania” – pg 30

    “Briar” – pg 29

    “Jeff and Mary” – pg 28

    Parent – “My daughter ran from our house” – pg 31

    (page numbers refer to relevant case in Prime Minister’s Report http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf )

    Information provided of police/CYF investigations but was not even included in review

    Mother suspended for tapping child on hand

    Father charged for ‘shoulder shake’ of boy refusing to get out of bed

    Mother of 10 year old who rings 111

    ENDS

    READ MORE Specific Detail Showing How the Report Misrepresents the Facts


    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    MEDIA RELEASE

    13 December 2009

    PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law

    Family First NZ says that an expert legal opinion on the smacking law published in the latest NZ Law Journal is confirmation that John Key needs to amend the law, not the guidelines, in order to deliver what he has told NZ parents.

    The article by Prof Richard Ekins from Auckland University entitled “’Light Smacking’ and Discretion” says

    • the 2007 Act makes it quite clear that parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction commit a criminal act – contrary to the ‘sales pitch’ by politicians. It also criticises a number of MP’s for the way they have tried to present the effects of the new law
    • any Police policy not to prosecute light smacking is unlawful.  ‘If the Government wishes to protect “good parents” from the criminal law then it cannot rely on s 59(4) but must instead invite Parliament to enact legislation specifying when and how reasonable force – a light smack – for the purpose of correction is justified.’
    • ‘The Police guidelines for the new s 59 demonstrate a tension between the presumption that light smacking of a child is inconsequential – effectively the Government’s position – and the Police Family Violence Policy’ – namely zero tolerance
    • the police guidelines indicate that a parent who lightly smacks their child on more than one occasion or who smacks more than one of their children should be automatically prosecuted
    • ‘Reasonable persons accept a duty to obey the law and hence are concerned that the law be reasonable. Because the Act makes it unlawful – a criminal offence – for any person to act in this way, the prospect of being accused, convicted, and punished, while not unimportant, is of secondary interest.’

    “John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores 87% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague. Legal experts agree with him. It is a badly written law as it stands,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “As the Ekins article says, good parents’ primary concern is that they operate under reasonable laws because they accept a duty to obey the law. They may obey the law but that doesn’t mean they agree with it.”

    “The PM said earlier this week that a light smack is ok and shouldn’t be criminalised – a view shared by more than 80% of the country.  But that’s not what the law says, as proved by this article,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Mr Key should take legal advice – not political advice – and amend the law to deliver what he wants, thereby giving parents certainty that they are parenting within the law. Then perhaps we can start to focus on the real causes of child abuse and the rotten parents who are abusing their kids and don’t care what the law says.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • “Richard Dawkins”: – like you’ve never seen him before

    World famous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins is coming to NZ for the Wellington Festival of the Arts 2010.

    I was able to get with “Richard” and interview him ‘after’ he arrived in the country…

    See the in-your-face interview – unlike any “Richard” has done before at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RMU9_7jSY

    If you like the video, pass the link on…

    If you have a website and would like to embed the video, go right ahead and do so…

  • Abortion Supervisory Committee Report 2009

    Media Release

    Abortion Supervisory Committee Report 2009

    The Abortion Supervisory Committee’s [ASC] report was tabled in Parliament on 8th December. The Committee reported 17,940 abortions in New Zealand 2008.

    This is a reduction of 440 on the 2007 year figure of 18,380. While encouraging, Right to Life reminds New Zealanders that each life is unique and irreplaceable. Hopefully one reason for the decrease is the increasing recognition in the community that abortion not only destroys innocent defenceless unborn children, it also harms the physical and mental health of women and their families.

    Right to Life is concerned about the unlawful abortions authorised in 2008.

    The statistics for 2008 reveal that 98% of abortions performed were authorised on the grounds of serious danger to the mental health of the mother. This statistic has been constant since 1977. Justice Miller’s judgement in the High Court in Wellington, (date) in the judicial review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, supported the conclusion that many of these abortions are unlawful.

    Justice Miller stated that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended.”

    “In my opinion, the statistics and the committee’s comments since the Court of Appeal made that observation, do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand has abortion on request” Dr Christine Forster was previously chairperson of the ASC from June 1993 to August 2001, a period of nearly eight years.

    The Abortion Supervisory Committee’s response is tragic. They are seeking to provide even greater access to chemical abortion by supporting the wider use of the toxic chemical Mifegyne RU486. This use of RU486, a ‘human pesticide’, in a pill form imposes an incredible psychological trauma on women, often leaving the mother to cope with aborted body parts from their baby.

    The report reveals that 140 disabled unborn children were killed in 2008 – how is this justified? It is deplorable that only the perfect are permitted to be born. A child does not forfeit its right to life because it has a disability.

    Right to Life believes that many innocent healthy unborn children have been deprived of their life unlawfully; this is a grave injustice – a violation of their right to life. It also permits the exploitation and abandonment of women. This is the justice issue of our era.

    Right to Life is gravely concerned at the increase in repeat abortions in 2008. Of the 17,940 abortions performed,

    • 11,312, (63%) of the total abortions were a woman’s first abortion.
    • 6628, (37%) were repeat abortions, an increase of 2% on 2007 figures
    • 4,469 women in 2008 were having their second abortion,
    • 1490 were having their third abortion,
    • 461 were having their fourth abortion,
    • 143 their fifth,
    • 40 their sixth and
    • 25 their seventh or more abortion.

    These statistics are scandalous and indicate that abortion is being used as a back up for failed contraception. The abortion laws do not provide for failed contraception as grounds for abortion.

    Right to Life asks why the Committee is not taking action to address this critical problem.

    The report reveals that:

    • 8,041 women were using contraceptives at the time their child was conceived.

    Of these women,

    • 4,898 were using condoms
    • 2,901 were using contraceptives.
    • These statistics show that contraceptives have a high failure rate. It is a tragedy that innocent unborn children are being killed in order to provide for another’s so called sexual freedom. The Committee suggested  in its report that because of New Zealand’s high abortion rate (in comparison with other countries) that we need more long acting contraceptives and that the government should consider reducing financial barriers to their use. If the Committee was serious about reducing our high abortion rate they would ask the government to:
    • promote abstinence before marriage
    • adoption in preference to terminating the lives of healthy unborn children
    • promote child/teen protection from sexual exploitation and sexualizing by the media and advertising agencies

    The Committee reports that “Over the past year the ASC has become conscious that workforce issues will need to be addressed in coming years to ensure continuity of abortion services in future.” The ASC is aware that there are very few operating doctors in New Zealand under the age of 50. Right to Life commends those doctors who faithful to the Hippocratic traditions of their healing profession have the utmost respect for the right to life of every child from the moment of conception and refuse to have any part in the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children. Right to Life is opposed to any efforts that the Abortion Supervisory Committee  might make to subvert the ethics of good doctors by encouraging them to become involved in the killing of unborn babies.

    Right to Life believes that a nation that kills its own children does not have a future and earnestly requests that:

    • The government promote a culture of life by promoting adoption as a loving life affirming option.
    • Hold the Abortion Supervisory Committee accountable for “pseudo-legal” abortions in this country.

    This is preferable to life destroying abortion which promotes a culture of death.

    Ken Orr

    Spokesperson,

    Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

    Phone 03 3856111