Waikato people smack law down
By BRUCE HOLLOWAY – Waikato Times
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/2709896/Waikato-people-smack-law-down
Author: HEF Admin
-
Waikato people smack law down
Waikato residents have given overwhelming support to allowing parents to smack their children. Some 92 per cent of Waikato people who plan to vote in the current postal referendum voting papers went out yesterday are against smacking of children being a criminal offence, according to a telephone survey of 409 people in a Waikato Times-Versus telephone poll. The poll was run this week on Tuesday and Wednesday. The results are a continuation of the high popularity for sanctioning smacking that has registered in national and regional polls for the past four years. But the Government has already said it won't change the two-year-old law, which Prime Minister John Key thinks is working well. The Times poll showed 70 per cent of Waikato residents planned to vote in the referendum, with that rising as high at 78 per cent within Hamilton. Females (76 per cent) were also more likely to vote. Residents were asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Just 8 per cent said yes. The wording, while awkward, is exactly the same as for the postal referendum. That phrasing has been widely condemned for automatically assuming a smack is part of good parental correction, and requiring those supporting smacking to vote "no". But 60 per cent of Waikato survey respondents thought the question was clearly worded 35 per cent thought it wasn't. A citizen-initiated referendum is not binding. Whatever the result, Parliament is not required to implement the will of the people. The Waikato Times asked Hamilton West National MP Tim Macindoe an opponent of the so-called anti-smacking law what pressure he would bear on his government colleagues as a result of such overwhelming support. "The figures speak for themselves, and I maintain the view that the no vote ought to be respected," he said. "But beyond that, in caucus it is a collective decision, and there is no party line on this. We are not being whipped [controlled by party whips] on this issue." Ahead of speaking at the national Toughlove conference in Hamilton last night, Mr Macindoe said the poll gave a clear indication of public sentiment. "There is a strong body of opinion coming through and all politicians will look at it closely." Asked how he felt about his Government potentially ignoring the voice of the people, Mr Macindoe said the prime minister had always said if there was any evidence it wasn't working, the Government would move to change it. Mr Macindoe conceded there was little sign the legislation was not working. Legislation was amended two years ago to remove the defence of reasonable force for the use of disciplinary purposes on children. A review of police activity shows the amendment has had minimal impact, while agencies which deal with dysfunctional families say the law is useful. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.85 per cent. -
A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime
A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime
Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009
The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.
“Smacking and taking a child to time out are now criminal acts in New Zealand’ said Mr Copeland. “But only when they are used for the purpose of correction that is to rebuke, in order to improve a child’s behaviour”.
“At the heart of this debate therefore there are really two questions.
Firstly do children need to be corrected?”“Most of us would answer this question with an emphatic “yes”. However some would just as emphatically answer “no” because they believe that children are born virtuous and will automatically, as if by instinct, grow up to become unselfish & loving adults! I believe, with the wisdom of the ages, that both children & and adults need to be corrected.”
“Secondly should parents be permitted by law to smack or take their children to time out as part of good & loving parenting?”
“I believe that the answer to this question is also yes. Note that, consistent with the Referendum question, the qualification is that we are here talking about these correction techniques used by good parents. I am not saying that hitting with a jug cord or locking a child in a dark room are acceptable correction techniques, because they are not! Those are the actions of bad parents who need to be corrected (there’s that word again) by the law of the land”.
“Are we capable of making that distinction clear in law? Of course we are and we should. The training, education and correction of children, accompanied by large lashings of love & good fun, are the central tasks of parenting. Simply stated that is what good parents do!”
“When it comes to correction parents should have the freedom, under the law, to use a variety of ways to achieve the outcome which they seek, namely an improvement in behaviour, in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances & age of the child. This includes appropriate verbal correction, smacking, timeout and as the child grows older, grounding & the loss of privileges. Parenting on a day by day basis is never one dimensional.”
“I believe that these decisions must be made by parents and by parents alone! The State has no role to play and it is wrong for politicians to outlaw smacking and the use of time out in these circumstances. They have no mandate to do so. This matter was not widely raised in the 2005 Elections. The issue made its way onto the floor of Parliament through a private Members Bill.”
“The claim that smacking and time out should be criminalised to bring the correction of children into line with the correction of adults is a fallacy.”
“We correct adults through fines, community service and prison sentences but none of these apply to children for the simple reason that they are children! The law always has & always will make that distinction.”
“I’m delighted that there is to be a Referendum on this issue and the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” is crystal clear. Let’s use the opportunity to deliver a message to the Beehive which politicians will ignore at their peril because this issue really is for the sake of our children, our grandchildren & all generations to come.”
Gordon Copeland is a former MP who left United Future to become an Independent because of his strong opposition to the criminalisation of smacking and time out for the purposes of correcting children.
Contact:
Phone
04 388 9805
Cell027 472 6998 -
CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.
FROM Big News blog – read the comments on Big News as well:
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html
CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.
A parent tells how he smacked his child
“I grabbed hold of her ankle and smacked her bottom” Two of his fingers went above the line of her belt, leaving red marks on her back.The smack worked. She stopped kicking and was soon apologetic.But the mental health service was about to give her a full medical examination. Lisa told a nurse about the red marks and the smack.A few days later, at 3pm on a Friday, CYFS staff rang. They had received a claim of abuse and they wanted the children out of the house while they investigated.
The question is, was CYFS right in doing that. How did it know the red marks were caused by a smack?
It didn’t.
The social worker described the situation at the time as “critical”. Family First has this case up on its website – [‘case 5] noting that the family were interviewed by the police for for five hours. The kids were removed, even though she was told that the marks were caused by the child falling on a vaccuum cleaner. On the Monday, CYFS spoke to the older daughter at school to find out how abusive her parents were and left her in tears. One wondered why they didn’t speak to her on the Friday before she was told to get alternative accomodation.
But it took involvement from the media to get an apology from CYFS boses. CYFS boss Ray Smith said CYFS could have done a better job of talking through other options”. Like hell they could have. He didn’t say what those other options might entail.
“I want to stress that removing children from a home is a last resort and that is not what happened in this case… I am sorry that the girls were upset and unsettled by our involvement with their family. I acknowledge that, in this case, we could have given [the parents] better advice on how to explain to their children what was happening.” He said the parents were “good parents”, but the agency had been “asked to get involved simply to see whether a family that appeared to be struggling needed our help”.
What a load of crap. That is an outright lie. The parent said that the agency got involved not to offer help but to investigate the allegation of abuse and kick the children out as a first resort after a complaint, thus interfering with the lives of good Kiwi parents. Then he has the audacity to say in a column today that:
This does not mean that CYFS is interfering in the lives of good Kiwi parents.
But he has admitted CYFS did just that in the above case. The parents had no option but to accede to CYFS demands.
Since when is CYFS there to “help” parents on how to “explain what was happening” when they don’t even listen to explanations as to what did happen?
Go to big News to read the comments and to make a comment:
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html
-
FAMILY FIRST – Campbell Live Debate
In case you missed it….
TV3’s Campbell Live tonight featured Bob McCoskrie – Family First, Anton Blank – from Te Kahui Mana Ririki; Sheryll Savill – the instigator of the referendum itself; and the chief executive of Barnados New Zealand Murray Edridge
You can also comment on TV3’s website here
http://www.3news.co.nz/Online-debate—the-smacking-referendum/tabid/1153/articleID/114365/cat/980/Default.aspxKind regards
Family First Team
Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz
-
Voters Not Confused by Referendum
MEDIA RELEASE
31 July 2009
Voters Not Confused by Referendum
Family First NZ says that the record number of registered voters for the Referendum shows that there is no confusion about the Referendum question.
“Sue Bradford has continued her attack on democracy and Referendums by insulting NZ’ers and saying they’ll vote yes when they mean no and vice versa. But it’s quite simple really – if you oppose the anti-smacking law, vote no – if you support the anti-smacking law, vote yes. What’s hard about that?” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Even government funded groups who have attacked the question still have been able to figure out how 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.”
“The Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 was introduced by politicians to allow NZ’ers to have a say on important issues. The people have met the very high benchmark set to have their say. The politicians must listen,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
U4L: Evil Destruction of a Family
U4L: Evil Destruction of a Family
Is this a glimpse into New Zealand’s future?
I have received this link to a very disturbing article titled “Evil Destruction of a Family” from the UK.
As you read this article, I would also like you to consider the parallel with a situation that did happen in NZ (no where near as serious as the UK experience, but very concerning), since the anti smacking law came into effect.
# Child has mind polluted from a police visit at their local school, subject was the anti-smacking law.
# Child wakes up next morning saying, I am not going to school and you can’t make me. \Mmother then asks where this came from. Answer: “police visit at school”
# Mother goes to Police Station and makes inquiry, “Now that you have undermined my authority as a parent how are we going to reinstate it”. Police agree to a home visit to put things straight.
# Remember, at no point has this mother broken any law.# Before visiting her home, Police spend several days investigating her record through different agencies. She has now been investigated for just an inquiry.
# Police visit, attack her parenting skills reducing her to tears, and then reinforce their original message from the school visit.
# Mother feels she has been mistreated and decides to inform her local MP.
# A short time later, a senior police officer phones her saying “You shouldn’t be going to your MP and stop wasting his time”.
# Media not interested in story
Regards
Craig Hill
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nzRemember, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
-
U4L: The referendum is now upon us
U4L: The referendum is now upon us
Hi All,Over the past few months Unity for Liberty has chosen to remain silent concerning the referendum.
There are a few simple reasons for this, firstly, the issue has been well represented by Family First and other prominent organizations and secondly, we wanted to know exactly what we are up against (It is now very clear, our Prime Minister and the rest of the anti-smackers are singing from the same song sheet: “Tell a lie long enough and everyone will start believing it”).
The Prime Minister also referred to the Referendum question as something out of Dr Seuss. Should we remind him about the story of the Emperor’s invisible clothes, where those who were told that they could not see it were ignorant. In this case, if we don’t understand the how badly worded the question is, then we too must be ignorant.
I am tired of having my intelligence insulted, ARE YOU?
Here’s the problem with the question: for many years (and at tax payers expense) those with a political agenda for social engineering have been promoting the lie that a smack as part of good parental correction is assault. They realize that the referendum question undermines that untruth and it’s associated brainwashing.
Clearly, attacking the wording of the question is just a disparate attempt to divert the focus away from real issue and create confusion. The real agenda was never about combating child abuse (since admitted by Sue Bradford), but by confusing good parental correction as assault they are then able to (by law) remove Parental Authority away from the parent, thus, by default, that very same authority then goes to the “STATE”.
The referendum question is not badly worded, it is only guilty of undermining the very heart of the uprising Socialist Ideology within New Zealand.
Here’s our problem, mainstream New Zealand knows their mind on this issue, we just need to remind them to vote. Over the next few weeks, we need to provide a presence within our own local communities so to encourage folk to return their voting papers.
We invite you to join with us and deliver as many pamphlets as possible within our own neighborhoods, We will also be setting up tables again encouraging folk to vote.
Go to “VOTE NO” for pamphlets and other information http://www.voteno.org.nz/
Against all the odds, it was people power that brought us success with the petition, and with a little more effort we can also bring a successful and proper conclusion to the referendum.If anyone is unsure on how to reach your local community, please feel free to contact myself for encouragement.
Thank You,
Craig Hill
021746113
http://www.unityforliberty.net.nzRemember, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing“ (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
-
No Defences Permitted for the Accused
From: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/no-defences-permitted-for-accused.html
No Defences Permitted for the Accused
In, The referendum campaign is underway, No Right Turn’s Idiot/Savant gives an excellent example of an argument we see coming up a lot in the debate around the upcoming referendum on smacking. In addition to trotting out the standard ad hominem, that everyone who supports the reinstatement of the old section 59 of the Crimes Act is a “child-beater,” I’d like to examine the emphasised part:Over the next month I expect to see a succession of unhinged press releases from the child-beaters claiming that the law somehow impinges on their religious freedom or has caused the widespread persecution of parents. It does nothing of the sort. What it has done is prevent parents who punch their children in the face or beat them with a soup ladle from claiming a defence of “reasonable force”. And that is unequivocally a Good Thing. The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way – and we should treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Essentially Idiot/Savant here claims the parent in his example are guilty, apriori, and as such, when they go to trial, they should not be able to attempt to raise a defence. The problem is that the whole point of having a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Even when it seems pretty obvious, trials are still necessary and the right to due process still applies. This right to due process includes, alongside the presumption of innocence, a right to raise a defence, no matter how stupid or implausible, and have the court assess it. The importance of this concept can be summed up by Blackstone’s Ratio, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”[1]Supporters of the anti-smacking law do not seem to get this. This ‘claiming a defence’ issue has been raised a lot ever since Sue Bradford first began promoting her bill to remove the old s59 defence, of reasonable force for the purposes of correction, from the Crimes Act. If you read the Vote Yes site, if you read the media releases and the articles and listen to the interviews you will hear it a lot.Of course what Idiot/Savant, Bradford, the Vote Yes people, et al miss is that there is a world of difference between claiming a defence and succeeding in doing so. The court is not stupid and the people making the determinations of guilt or innocence in our courts are normal, everyday people. If it is so obvious to all of us that hitting a child across the face with a soup ladle is child abuse, and it is obvious to all of us, a court, made up of people like us, is not going to rule that such an action is an example of reasonable force.The 34 reported cases on the old s59 are readily available in any law library and if you read them, instead of the media reports and politicians and websites and blogs, you will see time and time and time again child abusers failing in their attempts to raise the defence of reasonable force. The majority resulted in convictions and the few that did not were more often than not due to things like it not being proven who abused the child – which is terribly sad for the child, but you can’t just convict anyone so that you can chalk up a conviction! Wrongly decided cases are a fact of life. Just like doctors making mistakes on the operating table, just like us making driving errors. We should try very hard to ensure that these do not happen but to remove a defence entirely and risk the prosecution of the innocent is not the answer. Besides, some of the cases cited in the media as being wrongly decided were not even cases where s59 was raised, other defences like self-defences were in play… shall we remove self-defence as defence?The contempt for due process does not stop here; statements like Idiot/Savants that, “The only people who oppose that are people who wish to abuse children in that way,” show that he is willing to accuse anyone of being a supporter of child abuse because they support the right of an accused to a fair trial.
Chilling. Basically once accused of something heinous, one should not be allowed to defend oneself and anyone who disagrees is morally on par with a child abuser.
There is another patently obvious flaw in Idiot/Savant’s argument; removing the defence doesn’t just prevent people who seriously abuse children from raising the defence it also prevents the wrongly accused from being able to raise it. However, without defences there is no way of separating the two. I am not speaking here of those who can stand up in court and honestly state ‘I did not touch my child,’ such accused could plead ‘not guilty,’ I am speaking of those who end up in court for smacking their children, not hitting them with soup ladles across the face; I am speaking of those who with an open hand, lightly, smack a child on the bottom once, not out of anger or in the midst of rage but in response to disobedience on the part of child. Such people cannot plead not guilty if accused of assault, they have no legal defence if they end up before a court. To remove legal defences from people innocent of child abuse to ensure that the net catches everyone is wrong.
Hat Tip: HalfDone[1] William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1760). -
CYFS probe traumatises family
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10586993
CYFS probe traumatises family
4:00AM Tuesday Jul 28, 2009 By Simon CollinsThe Herald is running a week-long series on the smacking debate. To tell us your stories, go to the Your Views discussion. Or you can follow the debate on our facebook page.
Erik was investigated by Child, Youth and Family Services after he smacked daughter Abigail.
Your Views Have you changed your habits since the smacking law? Tell us your stories"After our poll on Saturday we're covering Monday what parents think: TUESDAY: Victims of the law WEDNESDAY: Children have their say THURSDAY: How teachers see it FRIDAY: The official view - police and CYFS SATURDAY: How will politicians respond
A father says his family were left traumatised and his elder daughter tearful after Child, Youth and Family Services investigated a smack. Parents Erik and Lisa toured the world for years with the Christian theatre group Covenant Players, presenting plays to schools and church groups on themes such as self-esteem, peer pressure, resolving conflict, bullying and addiction. "Before we had children, I read a number of books on strong-willed children by [Christian author Dr James] Dobson and others," says Erik. "In the back of my mind there was the suspicion that those children were not being raised right, that if they had loving parents who were consistent with their discipline, they would turn out to be good kids. Erik said he and Lisa had never had any problems with their elder daughter, who will soon be 13. "And then we had Abigail." Abigail, now 10, "from day one has known exactly what she wanted and been very insistent on getting it". "She will no doubt make a fantastic leader one day," her father said. But right now she's a challenge. "There are times when my wife and I are at our absolute wit's end." Last November, they took her to a child mental health service to get help. Health workers noted a bruise on her back that had been caused by tripping over a vacuum cleaner. Two days later, Abigail had what her father calls "a massive meltdown, banging her bunk against the wall and calling my wife evil". "I said, 'Either your behaviour stops or you're going to get a smack'," he said. "She started kicking at me. I grabbed hold of her ankle and smacked her bottom." Two of his fingers went above the line of her belt, leaving red marks on her back. The smack worked. She stopped kicking and was soon apologetic. But the mental health service was about to give her a full medical examination. Lisa told a nurse about the red marks and the smack. A few days later, at 3pm on a Friday, CYFS staff rang. They had received a claim of abuse and they wanted the children out of the house while they investigated. The parents protested, but were told they had no option. They found friends to take the two girls for the weekend. On the Monday, CYFS spoke to the older daughter at school and left her in tears. Late that afternoon, social workers visited the family, realised there had been a mix-up between the red marks and the bruise from the vacuum cleaner, and closed the case. Far from protecting the children, CYFS made things worse, Erik says. "Abigail went round locking the doors one night because she was afraid someone was going to come and take us. Our eldest would wake up at all different hours and had trouble going to sleep." Erik himself had to take leave from work, complaining to CYFS: "I am angry, have difficulty completing simple tasks, have several times come close to bursting into tears and at least once have actually done so." * CYFS will respond on Friday. Read Big News on this: http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html