Have you signed the petition yet?
“We, the undersigned, oppose any attempt to introduce extreme abortion laws in NZ.
Any changes would potentially pave the way for
* late term abortions (abortion up to birth),
* ‘gendercide’ (aborting children on the basis of their gender),
* eugenics (aborting those with disabilities e.g. Down’s syndrome),
* and possibly even partial-birth abortions.
Along with protecting the rights of the unborn child, we need to protect the health and welfare of mothers (and fathers as well) and the rights of women to know the medical facts in order that they can make fully informed and independent decisions.”
SIGN NOW – http://www.chooselife.org.nz/sign-the-petition/
Author: HEF Admin
-
Pro-Life: Please sign the Petition
-
$60k award after baby wrongly seized
A judge has awarded $60,000 to the parents of a baby girl wrongly seized by welfare authorities.
The young couple, from Dunedin, have told the Sunday Star-Times of their harrowing two-year battle to regain custody of the girl, who was taken by Child, Youth and Family at just 14 weeks because the agency wrongly suspected she’d been abused.
In fact, the baby’s multiple fractures were the result of rickets, caused by a lack of Vitamin D.
The pair were forced to go to court to prove they hadn’t abused the baby.
The couple, who cannot be named because of Family Court suppressions, took their daughter to a doctor in 2011 after she began “vomiting and twitching”.
The doctor suspected a bowel obstruction and arranged for the baby to be admitted to hospital. An MRI in hospital revealed the baby had a fractured skull, ribs and limbs.
The parents were interviewed by police and two days later, without notification, Child, Youth and Family applied for interim custody, which was granted.
Three days later tests showed the baby had severe vitamin D deficiency and rickets – a Victorian era condition, which can lead to fractures and deformity of bones. The couple thought at that point their daughter would be returned to them.
But when the case went to the Family Court, doctors were at odds over whether the infant’s injuries were caused by trauma or rickets. A Family Court judge ruled in favour of the CYF decision to remove the baby.
Judge John Coyle said there was no evidence the “doting parents” were mistreating their daughter, but rejected rickets as a cause and said he could only conclude one of the parents caused her broken bones.
The baby was sent to live with her paternal aunt. Her parents had to sell their house in Dunedin and move to the North Island so they could continue to see her on supervised visits. The couple was able to force an appeal of the original decision with new evidence from a case in Britain.
Read the rest of the article here…
-
Scotland is no longer a land of freedom
Scotland is no longer a land of freedom. The Scottish Parliament passed a bill today called the “Children and Young People (Scotland) bill.” This bill states that every child under the age of 18 will have a state appointed ‘named person’ who will engage in ‘corporate parenting.’ The purpose of this bill is to ensure that all children are taught and raised in a manner approved by the Scottish state.
Children’s Minister Aileen Campbell, pictured with Education Secretary Mike Russell, said the bill would transform family services in Scotland
“Increased provision of free childcare is part of a package of reforms which have been approved by MSPs.
“Increasing support for young people in care and the appointment of a “guardian” for every child in Scotland also form part of the bill.
“The bill will see an increase in free childcare for three, four and vulnerable two-year-olds, from 475 to 600 hours – around 16 hours per week – from August.
“A bid from Labour to give vulnerable two-year-olds a legal right to care was defeated at the committee stage, as was a Tory proposal to guarantee that all children get two years of nursery care before school, regardless of when their birthday falls. (Watch for this to come up again in the future)
“The bill will also extend free school meals to all children in the first three years of primary school, from January 2015.
“Meanwhile, the plan to appoint a so-called guardian for every Scottish child has been opposed by some religious groups and the Conservatives.
“The proposal to appoint specific named persons from the NHS and councils to monitor every young person’s well-being from birth to 18 is considered one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.
“Both the Church of Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance Scotland said the bill raised concerns about diminishing the position of parents and increasing the role of the state in modern society.
“Conservative education spokeswoman Liz Smith tabled a last-minute amendment that will be debated before MSPs vote.
“Ms Campbell insisted appointing a named person for every child would “provide a safety net for those who need one”. (But take away the freedoms of most families)
“The debate on the Children and Young People Bill can be watched on demand at BBC Scotland’s Democracy Live website.
The debate as it happened in the Scottish parliament
For more information: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26208628
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Zealand Politicians have been talking about this too.
-
John Key on Redefining Marriage – And why you may have been confused!
John Key – speaking to media at the ‘Big Gay Out’ Feb 2014
“The reality is that if I hadn’t voted for gay marriage it’s less likely it would have passed because the truth is that centre-right politicians are the ones that are less likely to vote for gay marriage – that’s been the trend around the world. Lots of prime ministers have been unwilling to either support or introduce the legislation when they come from the right of politics, and I gave a lot of cover to conservative MP’s that would have wanted to vote for it. So if you go and ask Louisa Wall what she thinks who had the members bill and she’s actually been really supportive of what I’ve done.”
AUDIO
Family First NZ Comment: “Lots of prime ministers have been unwilling to either support or introduce the legislation” because their voter base wouldn’t agree with redefining marriage and probably didn’t expect a centre-right government to flip-flop on the issue! The real concern is that while voters expected a socially conservative government, the current government is much more socially liberal than voters realised. Hence, bills promoting euthanasia, same-sex adoption, redefinition of marriage and liberalising abortion laws are considered potential winners. Attempts to fix the harms of gambling and prostitution, parental notification for teen abortions, anti-smacking laws, and the booze culture are being side-lined or weakened. That’s how far to the socially liberal side our parliament has moved – even with a centre right government! And that should concern us all.
READ MORE Marriage vote – National confusion, or just voting with the boss?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can view all these family-issue stories, research and additional material on this website www.familyfirst.org.nz
-
NZ euthanasia campaigner wants euthanasia for children
Belgium’s Child Euthanasia Sends Clear Warning
Media Release 14 Feb 2014: Family First NZ says that the passing of the child euthanasia law in Belgium sends a clear warning of just where these laws will end up, and NZ should reject any attempts by politicians to decriminalise euthanasia. “International evidence shows that deaths by assisted suicide and euthanasia have been increasing wherever the practices have been legalised, and that the door is opened to a world of 
abuse. There is a slippery slope, and the Belgium decision shows just how slippery that slope is,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.“And that slippery slope will quickly impact NZ. Labour MP Maryan Street, who intends to reintroduce her bill to decriminalise euthanasia after the general election, was recently quoted as saying: Application for children with a terminal illness was a bridge too far in my view at this time. That might be something that may happen in the future, but not now. This means that she isn’t ready to propose euthanasia for children with disabilities just yet, but that will soon change.”
“The euthanasia lobby always claims that it’s about the issue of choice, but the international evidence and experience prove otherwise. Now the coercion is aimed at children, and at the parents during a very difficult time. A Belgium Senator (left) even admitted that during the debate, euthanasia supporters talked about children with anorexia, mental illnesses, and children who were tired of life. Belgium has the same so-called safeguards in their law as Marian Street is proposing. Nonetheless, a 2010 study found 32% of euthanasia cases were carried out without request or consent. In fact, last month Dr Mark Cosyns, a leading euthanasia doctor, admitted to not reporting the many euthanasia deaths that he has done. Belgium is unable to control or prevent the abuse of the existing law. Now they have expanded it to impact children.” READ MORE
BBC News – Belgium votes euthanasia for children – no age limitNZ euthanasia campaigner wants euthanasia for children
3 News / LifeSite News 17 Feb 2014: The champion of euthanasia in New Zealand says Belgium’s bold move of euthanising children is already happening here. Lesley Martin says the only difference here is it’s happening covertly, and without official sanction. But she’s keen to see us follow the country that’s now gone the furthest of any when it comes to giving children the right to die. Professor Michel Ghins (anti-euthanasia Belgium) agrees, but believes those rights are to life. He says the Belgian law should sound as a warning to other countries tempted to legalise adult euthanasia. “Once the step has been made it’s very difficult to prevent all kinds of extensions to take place.” New Zealand parliament has debated euthanasia twice and refused to take the first step. The palliative care council is also opposed, it says treatment to relieve symptoms can have an unintended consequence of hastening death, but this is not euthanasia. Lesley Martin’s assertion has been contested by Dr. David Richmond, emeritus professor of geriatric medicine and spokesperson for Euthanasia-Free NZ. He believes that the Australia and New Zealand Society for Palliative Care “would strenuously deny that terminally ill children are deliberately overdosed with medication so as to bring about their early death.” Martin’s allegation, he says, is a deliberate attempt at “trying to convince the New Zealand public that there is already widespread use of euthanasia in New Zealand,” in order “to soften them up for the re-introduction of the End of Life Choice Bill or its successor.” READ MOREEuthanasia has a proven ‘slippery slope’ – Sue Reid
Dominion Post 18 Feb 2014: Mother, social commentator and writer for Family First NZ Sue Reid lost her son when he was seven days old. Her experience helped convince her New Zealand should not follow Belgium in allowing euthanasia for children.
“…Suffering doesn’t belong in a nice neat little box with a clean end. Parents have more chance of peace of mind, post-death of a child, by walking through all the palliative care options and knowing they did all they could… Palliative care provides new and powerful medications for many ailments to ensure health-challenged children are comfortable with minimum pain. Those that may respond with “why would you let your child suffer?” clearly underestimate and misunderstand suffering. Suffering in life doesn’t have nice, neat answers so a law like that of Belgium blindsides a healthy community rallying to foster support for loved ones. Civilised and compassionate countries like New Zealand should nurture a ‘culture of life’. READ MORE of this excellent Op-EdWATCH Plea from a child to a King: Stop Child Euthanasia
You can view all these family-issue stories, research and additional material on this website www.familyfirst.org.nz -
Child Abuse Rates Like A “Terminal Cancer” For NZ
MEDIA RELEASE
12 February 2014
Child Abuse Rates Like A “Terminal Cancer” For NZ
Family First NZ says that the statistics in the Salvation Army Report related to child abuse in New Zealand represent a terminal cancer desperate for aggressive treatment.
“The report makes grim reading and is a wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to tackle the root causes of child abuse – especially rotten parents,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“They also confirm that the anti-smacking law has been a complete failure which has simply wasted valuable time and resource of agencies distracted from dealing with actual child abuse and dysfunctional parents.”
The Salvation Army report shows the horrifying statistics: In the past five years, between 2008 (just after the anti-smacking law was passed) and 2013:
- recorded offences of violence, sexual assaults and neglect of children rose 68%; more serious child assaults have increased by 83%
- recorded sexual offences against children rose 43% and child neglect rose by 42%
- notifications to CYF have risen 66% (nearly 60,000 higher)
- cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect rose by 41% over the past five years
“The rates of child abuse are a national disgrace, and it’s time that we stopped beating around the bush about its causes. We must tackle head-on the issues of alcohol and drug abuse, family dysfunction and breakdown, declining marriage rates, and violence in our media and culture. It’s also essential that we remove political posturing and point-scoring from the process. Since the passing of the much-vaunted anti-smacking law, the rate of child abuse deaths has continued unabated,” says Mr McCoskrie.
““We must stop tip-toeing around these issues. We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues as well as mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF and CYF reports.”
“The Salvation Army report is a wake-up call that things are not getting better – they’re getting far worse.”
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/email-updates/ -
Anti-Smacking Studies Ignore Equal Harm From Other Corrective Actions – Study
MEDIA RELEASE
11 February 2014Anti-Smacking Studies Ignore Equal Harm From Other Corrective Actions – Study
A review of studies which have been critical of smacking as a corrective tool have revealed an inherent bias and can lead to unjustified and misguided prevention programmes and policy decisions, which could ultimately harm children.
The peer-reviewed study from Oklahoma State University titled “Making Valid Causal Inferences About Corrective Actions by Parents from Longitudinal Data”, and published in the December 2013 edition of the Journal of Family Theory & Review referred to three recent studies of 12 disciplinary tactics that parents could use instead of spanking. They found that
no disciplinary tactic was ever associated with reduced child behaviour problems, and 7 of the 12 tactics predicted significantly worse behaviour problems in at least one analysis.
Other studies showed that expressing disappointment and yelling or scolding were associated with as many significantly adverse outcomes as smacking, and time-out and shaming were also significantly associated with internalising problems. Psychotherapy for children and using Ritalin for ADHD appear just as harmful as smacking when using the best research methods used in anti-smacking studies.
The study argues that selection bias taints the conclusions of most studies which criticise smacking. They say:
Parents are less likely to use corrective actions when children do well in school.. do not smell of tobacco smoke, are not at risk for precocious sex, demonstrate trustworthiness with non-deviant peers, are cooperative, and respond well to reasoning. Quite simply, parents do not need to use corrective actions when there are no problems to correct.
They say that this bias hinders discriminations between more versus less effective corrective actions and promotes a tendency to make absolute conclusions against corrective actions.
They conclude that studies which criticise smacking all failed to investigate alternative disciplinary tactics that parents could use in similar disciplinary situations.
Instead, these studies implicitly compared high spanking (smacking) frequency versus doing nothing.. Doing nothing, however, is not an acceptable option when parents are dealing with defiance or dangerous behaviour… Before spanking can be discounted as a viable disciplinary tactic, it needs to be compared with alternatives such as time-out which parents could use in similar disciplinary situations. The failure to make such comparisons has undermined the scientific basis for alternatives to recommend to parents when spanking is proscribed, thus undermining the success of spanking bans.
“It is time we targeted rotten parents who are abusing their children, rather than good parents who choose to use a smack as part of their parenting tool box when raising great kids,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Link to Study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jftr.12020/abstract
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/email-updates/ -
Is New Zealand looking more and more like Sweden?
I have several links to share on what is happening in Sweden:
1. In this first link it was also reported that when the “Italian politician pulled his son’s hair” he was pulling his son’s collar. Unfortunately some hair got caught in his hand at the same time he pulled at his son’s collar. As soon as his son screamed he stopped. But these two facts are being ignored.
Italian politician convicted of child cruelty for pulling his son’s hair, (2011)
There has been a very interesting development in the Malaysian case: On Jan 30, the deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived in Stockholm and took the four children with him back to Malaysia. They arrived in Malaysia on January 31, and the children were received by the Prime Minister. There are articles about the case in many Swedish newspapers, but Swedish Radio and TV have not mentioned the case or the radical resolution – not with one single word.
Here are some more articles on the Malaysian case:
1 – Najib thanks Sweden for facilitating children’s return (What a diplomatic way to describe the situation!)2 – Where did Mumble get his black bruises? (2012)
Comments: After the Mumble incident Indian families started to flee from Sweden.
3 – (The Romanian Family in Sweden, (2013))
Comments: The Romanian family lost the public care case in December 2013. They have appealed, but as long as the criminal case has not been decided, their children will remain in care.4 – The Polish Family, (2012 – 2013) “Våldtogs i jourhem – nu kan syskonen få flytta hem igen“ (Raped in the temporary foster home . now the sibblings can return home)
Quotes from the article:
“ I will never be able to forget what they did to our family. But now I just want my children to come home, says the biological mother.
Her lawyer, Kerstin Koorti, is critical of the social services.
– This only shows that the system is not functioning. I think they have taken a great many hasty decisions and exposed these children to terrible things.”
5 – The Malaysian Family, (2013 – 2014),
Outrage over couple’s detention without trial in Sweden,
Malaysia Kids allowed to meet family
Sweden: Campaign to free Malaysian parents detained for smacking child
Malaysian couple held in Sweden over claims they smacked their child for missing his prayers
As usual, there is no common sense at all and no sense of proportionality.
Quote from the invitation to a seminarium that will take place at the Univ of Sthlm on February 11, 2014:
“This year’s seminar series of Jurisprudence continues on Tuesday, February 11 with Pernilla Leviner and the theme: The Swedish smacking ban in the Parental Code – effects, consequences and challenges 35 years after the implementation of the reform.
Pernilla Leviner is PhD in public law and she works at the Faculty of Law, Stockholm University.
Pernilla’s research lies within and on the boundary between public law and family law and it has mainly dealt with society’s responsibility to protect children from crime and victimization. The thesis from 2011 was about the social services’ legal prerequisites to intervene to protect children. After her Dissertation Pernilla spent for one and a half years as a visiting researcher at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, and there she conducted research concerning the role and function of courts in child protection but also prohibiting corporal punishment of children, among other issues.
This seminar will deal with the Swedish smacking ban, its origins and meaning but also implications, dilemmas and challenges related to the protection of children from violence in Sweden today.
Sweden as everyone knows, was the first country in the world which in 1979 imposed a ban on corporal punishment of children. To work for a similar ban in other countries is seen by many as a key measure of a child rights perspective and several international organizations have this at the very top of their agenda. In advocacy of a smacking ban in other countries Sweden is often referred to as a role model, especially given the positive changes that are shown in terms of attitudes and use of corporal punishment as a method of education. Even though the smacking ban should be seen in a broader context and that a number of factors conspired in the development that led to the low tolerance of violence, the reform itself must still seen as a legal political success in the sense that the objectives set by the legislature have largely been fulfilled. However, there is a danger that we in Sweden may be pleased with ourselves over our successful smacking ban and not problematize the victimization of children from a broader perspective . A closer analysis reveals that the Swedish system regarding the protection of children from violence and victimization in their homes is facing a series of challenges, some of which may even be linked to the introduction of the smacking ban and its effects. Recent studies indicate, for example, the creation of a problematic taboo around violence against children. Overall, despite the fact that the Swedish smacking ban in many ways must be seen as a success and an example, there is reason to critically examine the Swedish smacking ban from a broader perspective with regard to the child welfare system as a whole.
This is the overall aim of this seminar. The ban will be described and placed in a historical and contextual perspective after which the effects and consequences? both positive and potentially negative? will be discussed. The situation in Sweden in this area will also be compared with the situation in Australia where prohibition does not exist despite strong pressure from some areas and where a recurring debate on the issue has taken place in recent years.”Time and place: Tuesday, February 11 kl.16 :00-18: 00 in the Faculty Room (8th floor next to the elevator, building C)
Welcome
Swedish:
Årets seminarieserie i allmän rättslära fortsätter på tisdag den 11 februari med Pernilla Leviner och temat Det svenska i agaförbudet i föräldrabalken – effekter, konsekvenser och utmaningar 35 år efter reformens genomförande.
Pernilla Leviner är juris doktor i offentlig rätt verksam vid juridiska fakulteten Stockholms universitet.
Pernillas forskning ligger inom och i gränslandet mellan offentlig rätt och familjerätt och har framförallt behandlat samhällets ansvar att skydda barn från brott och utsatthet. Avhandlingen från 2011 handlade om socialtjänstens rättsliga förutsättningar att ingripa till skydd för barn. Efter disputation vistades Pernilla under ett och ett halvt år som gästforskare vid Monash University, Melbourne, Australien och där bedrivit forskning bland annat i frågor rörande domstolars roll och funktion i barnskyddsarbetet men även om förbud mot barnaga.
Detta seminarium kommer behandla det svenska agaförbudet, dess tillkomst och innebörd men även konsekvenser, dilemman och utmaningar som är kopplade till skyddet för barn från våldsutsatthet i Sverige idag.
Sverige var som bekant det första landet i världen som 1979 införde ett förbud mot barnaga. Att verka för ett liknande förbud i andra länder ses av många som en central åtgärd ur ett barnrättsperspektiv och flera internationella organisationer har detta allra högst på sin agenda. I förespråkandet av agaförbud i andra länder hänvisas ofta till Sverige som ett föredöme, särskilt med tanke på de positiva förändringar som här visats i fråga om attityder och bruk av aga som en uppfostringsmetod. Även om agareformen bör ses i ett större sammanhang och att en rad faktorer samverkat i den utveckling som lett fram till den låga toleransen i fråga om våld, måste reformen i sig ändå ses som en rättspolitisk succé i den meningen att de mål som uppställdes av lagstiftaren i hög grad har uppfyllts. Det finns dock en risk för att vi i Sverige slår oss till ro med vår lyckade agareform utan att problematisera barns utsatthet ur ett större perspektiv. Vid en närmare analys framkommer att det svenska systemet i fråga om skydd för barn från våld och utsatthet i sina hem står inför en rad utmaningar, varav vissa till och med möjligen kan kopplas till agaförbudets införande och effekter. Senare studier talar bland annat för att det skapats ett problematiskt tabu kring våld mot barn. Sammantaget finns det, trots att den svenska agareformen på många sätt måste ses som en framgång och ett föredöme, skäl att kritiskt granska det svenska agaförbudet ur ett större perspektiv med beaktande av barnskyddssystemet som helhet.
Detta är det övergripande syfte med detta seminarium. Förbudet kommer att beskrivas och sättas i ett historiskt och kontextuellt perspektiv varefter effekter och konsekvenser ? både positiva och eventuellt negativa ? kommer att diskuteras. Situationen i Sverige på detta område kommer även övergripande att jämföras med situationen i Australien där något förbud inte finns trots starka påtryckningar från vissa håll och där en flitig debatt i frågan pågått under senare år.
Tid och plats: tisdag den 11 februari kl.16:00-18:00 i Fakultetsrummet (plan 8 intill hissen, C-huset)
-
Support Family First
The following is from Family First. If you are not on their mailing list then I would recommend that you click on this link below to get this information in your inbox especially leading up to the elections:
The anti-smacking law has been back in the public spotlight, thanks to the Conservative Party, and Family First is planning a major campaign on overturning this law in the lead-up to the election. As a result of Family First contacting the media, both the Dominion Post and the Sunday Star Times had to print retractions relating to the way they were presenting the application and impact of the law (see below right). However this misinformation was then repeated by the Prime Minister! We will continue to monitor this debate – and ensure that parents are receiving the facts on just how harmful this law has been and why it must be changed.
Media and PM Misleading Public on Smacking Prosecutions
Media Release 20 Jan 2013: Family First NZ says that the Prime Minister is now misrepresenting the facts relating to smacking prosecutions. The Dominion Post and the Sunday Star Times have already had to print corrections because of misrepresenting the facts. “A number of media outlets and editorials claimed that police have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in and that seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face. This was completely wrong and misleading. The Prime Minister is now repeating the myth (Radio 
Live this morning audio). It is also disappointing that the police are not speaking up about the incorrect information, and we wonder why not,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This means that John Key’s judgment of the working of the law is based on wrong information. This is either to justify not taking action on fixing the law, or the Prime Minister is continuing to receive wrong advice.” READ MORE HERE’S THE FACTS:
According to the police reviews and Official Information Act requests by Family First NZ, the following have been prosecuted and in most cases convicted:
1. Smack on nappy – subsequently withdrawn. 3rd review
2. Smack on bottom. 6th review
3. Smacked on leg with no physical injury. 7th review
4. Smacked on bottom with no physical injury. 8th review
5. Smacked on bottom with no physical injury. 9th review
6. Smacked on lower leg with no physical injury – withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. 10th review
7. Smacked on upper leg with no physical injury. 10th review
8. Smacked on leg with no physical injury. 10th review“Parents will be surprised by the types of actions which the police are taking to court – despite the guarantees of the Prime Minister that a smack is ok – a claim reiterated this morning on Radio Live. Almost 600 kiwi families have had a police investigation for allegations of smacking or minor acts of physical discipline since the anti-smacking law was passed yet only 9% of them have been serious enough to warrant charges being laid,” says Mr McCoskrie. “A law is obviously a ‘dog’s breakfast’ when there is such a high rate (90%-plus) of cases warranting no further action by the police. Yet for these ‘good parents’, the experience will have been hell.”
Family First Comment: We’ll keep you informed on this issue, where the political parties stand on changing the law, and what you can do to help us run a strong campaign to overturn the law.
Sign up for email updates from Family First
-
PM Misleading Public on Smacking Prosecutions
MEDIA RELEASE
20 January 2014
Family First NZ says that the Prime Minister is now misrepresenting the facts relating to smacking prosecutions. The Dominion Post and the Sunday Star Times have already had to print corrections because of misrepresenting these facts.
“A number of media outlets and editorials claimed that police have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in and that seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face. This was completely wrong and misleading. The Prime Minister is now repeating the myth (Radio Live this morning). It is also disappointing that the police are not speaking up about the incorrect information, and we wonder why not,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“This means that John Key’s judgment of the working of the law is based on wrong information. This is either to justify not taking action on fixing the law, or the Prime Minister is continuing to receive wrong advice.”
According to the police reviews on the law, smacking is defined as ‘a slap with the open hand on the buttocks or legs that does not result in any form of injury’. The police claim that ‘”smacking” in itself is not an offence.’ A minor act of physical discipline is defined as ‘a slap with the open hand on any other part of the body (including the face) that does not result in any form of injury’. There have been 46 prosecutions for minor acts of physical discipline, and 8 for smacking.
“But what is significant is the prosecutions for smacking which the police and the politicians say will not be prosecuted.”
According to the police reviews:
1. One smacking event was prosecuted, but subsequently withdrawn when the primary witness declined to give evidence. 3rd review
2. One prosecution – no details provided by police. 6th review
3. Child was smacked on leg. 7th review
4. Child was smacked on the buttocks with no physical injury. 8th review
5. Child was smacked on the buttocks with no physical injury. 9th review
6. Father allegedly slapped his daughter on her lower leg, causing her to cry but leaving no injury – withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. 10th review
7. Child smacked around the upper thighs, leaving no injuries. 10th review
8. Father smacked his two sons on their legs in a public place, resulting in no injuries. 10th review
“Parents will be surprised by the types of actions which the police are taking to court – despite the guarantees of the Prime Minister that a smack is ok – a claim reiterated this morning on Radio Live. Almost 600 kiwi families have had a police investigation for allegations of smacking or minor acts of physical discipline since the anti-smacking law was passed yet only 9% of them have been serious enough to warrant charges being laid,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“A law is obviously a ‘dog’s breakfast’ when there is such a high rate (90%-plus) of cases warranting no further action by the police. Yet for these ‘good parents’, the experience will have been hell.”
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/email-updates/