For printing out and giving away:
What does the Bible have to say about…
Why we need to smack
What we use to smack
What we are trying to achieve
How we do it
The tongue-lashing alternative
When we changed websites these brochures were lost in the change. Sorry this was not picked up until now. We have been asked to put these back on our website. These brochures were written before Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Bill was pulled out of the Ballot.
For Reading on your Computer:
What Does the Law Really Say?
Is Smacking the Same as Abuse?
Will Parents’ Authority Be Taken Away?
Will This Turn Parents into Criminals?
Questions….and Answers
When we changed websites these brochures were lost in the change. Sorry this was not picked up until now. We have been asked to put these back on our website. These brochures were written before Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Bill was pulled out of the Ballot.
What Does the Law Really Say?
Is Smacking the Same as Abuse?
Will Parents’ Authority Be Taken Away?
Will This Turn Parents into Criminals?
Questions….and Answers
When we changed websites these brochures were lost in the change. Sorry this was not picked up until now. We have been asked to put these back on our website. These brochures were written before Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Bill was pulled out of the Ballot.
July 29, 2008 by Denise Robertson, Western Mail
I’M TOLD there are moves in Parliament to bring in a Bill to outlaw smacking. If they succeed, I will again oppose it, which seems odd when I abhor smacking and long for a world in which every child is free from fear.
The reason for my objection is “mission-creep”, that insidious disease which overtakes too many pieces of legislation that at first seem sensible. In other words, give an idiot a law a sane man or woman would use sensibly and the idiot will abuse it.
Mission-creep has overtaken terrorism laws so that they are now used against ordinary citizens. Latest figures reveal that councils across Wales and England launched more than 10,000 spying missions last year to investigate possible petty offences.
Rules to curb paedophile activity have led to inexcusable situations like a mother from Aberfan being banned from riding in a taxi with her disabled child until she has a criminal record check.
If a smacking ban succeeds, forget assurances that it will be used with common sense. Before long some good mum or dad will be hauled into court because, in a moment of panic, they tapped little Johnny’s legs for running into the road. The case will probably be thrown out when the court sees the whole picture, but not before that family has been traumatised.
We already have laws to prevent the abuse of children – laws which are not used often enough in my opinion – but my fear of mission-creep if there is a total ban on smacking is very real.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0807/S00332.htm
More Evidence of Good Parents Victims of Anti-Smacking Law
Family First has published advertisements in the Sunday papers highlighting further cases of good parents being reported, investigated, persecuted, and even prosecuted as a result of the anti-smacking law.
“All NZ’ers want to tackle the issue of child abuse but the anti-smacking law, and the compromise brokered by John Key, has not brought about the desired result,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Even the architect of the bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, has admitted that the bill was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse and child violence.”
Family First has documented evidence of a number of disturbing cases including:
* a father separated from his children for 6 months by CYF because of malicious claims by mother that he had smacked them – CYF eventually re-allowed access but only due to a strong supporter who knew the system
* a father prosecuted and convicted because of pushing the upper arm of his daughter 2-3 times and demanding she listen to her mother
* a father dragged through the court process only to turn up to the court case and the police to admit they had no evidence
* a stepfather who had to physically restrain the arms of his stepdaughter, being interrogated for 2 hours almost 7 months after the incident, and 6 months later still not knowing the outcome
* a CYFS Community Panel Board member telling Family First “I can say without a doubt, that in my time I have seen a small but a definite increase in ‘good’ parents being investigated by our CYFS case workers.”
Other cases are documented on our website http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/CASES
Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers, according to recent research).
ENDS
td{ font: normal 10pt arial}
|
This advertisement appeared in all national Sunday newspapers…
If you can’t see image, CLICK HERE Thanks for helping us defend good parents while demanding action on real child abuse |
 |
Hi everyone.
Recent comments reported in the media by John key have made it abundantly clear that National have no intention of repealing Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.
National’s call for the referendum to be held at the election so New Zealanders can have their say is meaningless if they are not prepared to listen and respond to the result of the referendum.
You will recall I said very clearly that if we want to see the law changed it is essential that the Kiwi party hold the balance of power after this election.
In less than 4 months New Zealand will hold a general election and we have much to do to prepare the Kiwi Party for a successful result.
The good news is that we have come along way in the five months since our registration with the Electoral Commission was finalised. Regional conferences have been held in eight cities and Kiwi Party committees have been established and are preparing for action in the coming months.
The Party now has over 1000 members. At every meeting where we have the opportunity to present what the Kiwi Party stands for we find an almost 100% positive response from those who attend.
National Conference
In just over two weeks we will hold our Kiwi Party National conference in Auckland on Aug 9 at the Ellislie Racecourse.
We have an exciting line up of speakers from within the party and invited guests. You can register directly on line.
Nationwide Protest
We are discussing the potential for launching a campaign to protest the Prime Ministers disregard for democracy by not holding the referendum at the election. We are formulating plans and will advise you shortly. I am keen to hear from anyone who would be interested in helping organise a protest gathering in your city or town.
Warm regards,
Larry Baldock
Kiwi Party Leader.
|
|
||
From Family First NZ Website:
Vigilance needed still on child abuse
should read Vigilance needed to keep smacking banned!)
Otago Daily Times 26 July 08
The repealing of section 59 of the Crimes Act was not “100% safe” (TRUE) and it was important to stay vigilant, Green Party MP Sue Bradford told those attending the Children’s Issues Centre national seminar in Dunedin yesterday. “There is still an ongoing political battle and it is not completely won.(TRUE) ” Ms Bradford is one of six speakers at the seminar, which is focused on moving on from the repealing of section 59.
Polls showed the law change was a major election issue for about 5% of voters (TRUE), Ms Bradford said. The “most powerful forces” working against the law change were those involved in the petition for a referendum on the issue (FALSE – IT’S THE HUGE PROPORTION OF NZ’ERS). There was no question the petition had been “amazingly successful” (TRUE) given that it was very difficult to meet the required 10% target, she said. “They have poured a huge amount of time and money into it. (TIME YES MONEY NO) ” More signatures were collected for the petition after the first petition fell short (FALSE) when more than 5000 signatures were declared invalid (FALSE). A report on the validity of those further signatures was expected at the end of August.
“I feel sure some of the people who signed it then have changed their mind since (FALSE), but that doesn’t negate the legality of those signatures.” Any potential threat to the law change would depend on the make-up of the next government (TRUE). Her biggest concern would be any attempt to change the law to define an acceptable level and nature of violence, as that would send the message violence against children was acceptable (FALSE), she said. The role of academics and researchers in any future debate would be “incredibly important”.
There was no evidence people were being “dragged off to court” for minor offences (FALSE) and she welcomed research presented at the seminar which showed 44% of voters were in favour of the new legislation (FALSE), she said. “While Family First are creating the perception 80% are against it, I feel this is much more in line and that the proportion is about 50-50. (FALSE)”
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/14996/vigilance-needed-still-child-abuse
Family First Comment: Note that there is no reference to the continuing rate of child abuse deaths, the skyrocketing rates of CYF notifications, and the continued horror stories of real child abuse happening where there is drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, dysfunction etc.
“The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
Sue Bradford – National Radio – 21 Dec 07
Read Family First Media Releases
Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ
Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts
July 2008
Discredited Anti-Smacking Advocate Back in NZ
Family First NZ says that Canadian researcher Joan Durrant, who is currently in NZ as a guest of the anti-smacking lobby, has been discredited with her claims made during the anti-smacking debate.
“In fact, her evidence was not even accepted in her home country of Canada when they were debating a similar section to NZ’s s59 of Canada’s Criminal Code,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
A document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH in 2006 stated that “In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years.” This was based on a 2000 paper by Joan Durrant A generation without smacking – The impact of Sweden’s ban on physical punishment published by Save the Children which said “The rate of child homicide … in Sweden is something like one every 4 years”
“This statement, now referred to as the ‘Swedish myth’, has proved to be completely inaccurate and Morgan Johansson, the public health minister, said in 2006 that ‘every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years.’ Even NZ’s Children’s Commissioner has acknowledged that Durrant’s figures were wrong.”
“Durrant also uses a completely irrelevant definition of child abuse, and excludes the killing of children as a result of neglect, intentional killings, post-natal depression, babies killed within 24 hours of birth, and those accompanied by suicide by the abuser. She has adopted a definition by Somander and Rammer (1991) which also excludes child deaths due to poverty, marital conflicts, alcohol abuse, sparing the child the kind of life led by the perpetrator, and giving no reason for killing the child.”
“No wonder she has misrepresented the effect of the Swedish smacking ban on child abuse rates! Even UNICEF reports have ignored her definition,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Dr Robert Larzelere, who was one of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ’s s59 of Canada’s Criminal Code and a member of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment for the American Psychological Association, says that a careful review of Durrant’s findings reveals that her conclusions reflect her “unconditional commitment to an anti-smacking perspective more than an objective appraisal of the data available from her sources.”
Other conclusions by Dr. Durrant have been criticized by other authors, including her conclusions that the Swedish spanking ban led to decreased support for spanking (Roberts, 2000), that child abuse has not increased since 1979 (Lindell & Svedin, 2001), and that child abuse fatalities have been almost nonexistent since then (Beckett, 2005).
“Family First NZ welcomes open, honest, and robust debate on the anti-smacking law, but Joan Durrant has been well and truly discredited as part of this debate,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Read More: “Sweden’s smacking ban: more harm than good” Robert E Larzelere PhD
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
24 July 2008
Anti-Smacking Conference At Venue Where Research Contradicts
Family First NZ says that it is highly ironic that the anti-smacking lobby is gathering together at Otago University this coming weekend to try and sell the deeply flawed anti-smacking law.
Otago University research showed that reasonable and appropriate smacking for the purpose of correction was not harmful and in some circumstances was actually beneficial in the development of a child.
“The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study released in 2006 found that children who are smacked lightly with an open hand on the bottom, hand or leg do much the same in later life as those who are not smacked,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “They had similar, and sometimes even slightly better outcomes, in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.”
“Just up the road at the Christchurch School of Medicine, Professor David Fergusson found there was no difference between not smacking and moderate physical punishment. The research said ‘It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences’.”
“We hope that delegates at the conference will take time to examine the local research which contradicts the ideology behind the flawed anti-smacking law, will heed the warnings of the Swedish experience where the smacking ban has done more harm than good, and will respect and heed the call of over 80% of NZ’ers to change the law,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
