Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    MEDIA RELEASE

    23 July 2008

    Greens Decide Parents Should Now Be Listened To

    Family First NZ says it is highly ironic, and hypocritical, for the Greens to be demanding that the government listen to the concerns of parents worried about the health risks of locating huge telecommunications tower masts next to pre-schools and schools.

    Green Party Press Release “Dear Helen, please listen to the parents” – 23 July 2008

    “For the past two years, the Green party has completely ignored the voice of over 80% of NZ’ers who opposed Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, and have shown no concern that over 50% of our parents have admitted breaking the law and are risking investigation by police and CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The Greens are completely correct to demand that the concerns of parents are given weight regarding the location of phone towers and associated health risks, but they can’t have it both ways.”

    “They can’t ignore the views of parents on how they want to raise their kids legally and reasonably, yet demand that parents be heard on other issues.”

    “The Greens need to respect the important role of parents on all issues – not just those that they agree with them on,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Muriel Newman: Moral Neutrality

    h

    ttp://www.nzcpr.com/weekly139.htm

    Parliament

    20 July 2008
    Moral Neutrality

    Earlier this month Britain’s culture of “moral neutrality” came under attack. In a speech in Glasgow, Conservative Party Leader Rt Hon David Cameron said that the obese, drug addicts and the poor have no-one to blame but themselves.

    He defined moral neutrality as the refusal to make judgements about what is good or bad, right or wrong: “We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more. Refusing to use these words – right and wrong – means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice”.

    He went on to say, “We talk about people being “at risk of obesity” instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather. Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make”.

    David Cameron believes that there is now a very real danger of Britain becoming “a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop”. To read the speech click the sidebar link>>>

    The parallels with New Zealand are surely plain for all to see. We have now become so non-judgemental that speaking the truth and calling a spade a spade, all too often leads to complaints to the Human Rights Commission – not to mention the Press Council, the Advertising Standards Authority, and all of the other organisations that sit in judgement on such matters.

    The danger is that human rights laws, which were originally introduced under the guise of protecting individuals from discrimination, impinge on the most basic human right of all – individual freedom. Under the Labour government, human rights arguments have been used to impose the political agendas of favoured minority groups onto the public at large to the extent that, for example, Maori cultural beliefs now dominate the New Zealand education curriculum1 and sexual orientation has ceased to be a private matter but – with a question on sexual orientation being planned for the census – one in which the state has a particular interest.2

    According to the prevailing culture of political correctness that has developed during Labour’s regime, nothing is anyone’s fault anymore. If you are too lazy to work, the government will pay you to stay at home; if you are one of the 5,279 drunks and druggies drawing a benefit, the government will contribute $1 million a week to keep your habit going 3; if you are a teenage girl with little education and no career prospects, the government will pay you to bear and raise the next generation of children; if you are grossly obese, the government will pay $25,000 to have your stomach-stapled.4

    Yet individuals make myriads of choices almost every moment of every day, and learning to live with the consequences of those choices is an important part of life. That’s how society operates. It is surely not the role of the state to interfere in the free choices that people make (so long as they do not harm others), nor to shield people from the consequences. To do so creates a ‘victim’ culture whereby the state rewards those who make poor choices with ever-more generous taxpayer-funded compassion.

    As John Stuart Mill said so eloquently – in defence of the freedom of individuals from the power of the state – in On Liberty in 1859, “… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”

    Society’s primary role of moral teacher – instilling in children what is good or bad, right or wrong – has traditionally been the family. Children who are given strong boundaries of what is and is not appropriate behaviour, and are imbued with a clear understanding of the consequences of the moral choices they make, generally become responsible members of society. But when parents fail to properly bring up their children, the results can be disastrous.

    Just last month the Christchurch Press told the story of a recovering drug addict: John’s drug use started at home with parents who smoked cannabis and took pills. By age nine he was drinking alcohol, and by age 11 smoking cannabis. At age 14 he started using intravenous opiate. It was all downhill after that.

    John admitted that he had committed over 500 burglaries, robberies and dishonesty offences to fund his drug habit: “I committed a lot of crime. I committed crime I’ve never been caught for over the years. I’d go out and commit burglaries four, five or six burglaries a night. Every night. Every day. Even while I was at work I’d go away at lunch time and commit a crime to support my habit that night. I was using anywhere up to $2000 daily…”

    John has five children, all girls; two of the older ones, aged 17 and 18, use drugs: “I definitely don’t want them to have the same life as I’ve had. I had a choice to say no. It’s not a sickness it’s a personal choice. For these younger generations I pray for them not to get into it.” 5

    When the Labour Government introduced the anti-smacking law last year, the vast majority of New Zealanders opposed it. Not because they condoned violence against children – no-one condones that. They opposed the smacking ban because they understand that the dynamics of family life are delicately balanced. Anyone who has raised children knows that there is a fine line between good outcomes and the abyss. And the last thing that a family needs is the heavy hand of the state interfering in private matters.

    By banning smacking, the state has now intruded deep into the heart of family life. A predictable wedge has been driven between parents and children. It has created a situation where many parents, now fearful of prosecution, are afraid to set proper boundaries for their children in case the children object and complain to the authorities. This is now inhibiting the way that parents raise their children to the point where, when the going gets tough, many parents are now throwing in the towel and passing the problem of their unruly children onto the wider community.

    In his speech, David Cameron acknowledges that the social breakdown seen in Britain is caused by family breakdown, welfare dependency, debt, drugs, poverty, poor policing, inadequate housing, and failing schools, and he warns that society, “is in danger of losing its sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and even public morality”.

    The fractures that we now see in New Zealand families and communities have deepened over the last nine years. The bonds that link our society have become weaker. The people most at risk are the vulnerable – those without an education, without a good job, without strong family supports. These are the very people that a Labour Government should have been protecting through sweeping social reforms to ensure that every child succeeds at school, that no-one is left to languish on welfare, and that family life is encouraged and supported. By failing to make the necessary reforms, Labour has entrenched disadvantage for far too many New Zealanders.

    David Cameron claims that in Britain there has been a relentless erosion of responsibility, social virtue, self-discipline, and a respect for others. He believes that the only way to turn it around is to encourage personal responsibility as a cornerstone social value.

    Encouraging personal responsibility as a cornerstone social value – as well as throwing off the stultifying political correctness that has weighed this country down for far too long – would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction for New Zealand too.

    This week’s poll asks: Do you think that a culture of “moral neutrality” has developed in New Zealand. ? Go to Poll >>>

    FOOTNOTES

    1 Muriel Newman, Selling Our kids Short
    2     Dominion, As you like it: A sexy census
    3 Waikato Times, The benefit and the doubt
    4 Dominion Post, Hundreds to get taxpayer-funded stomach stapling
    5     Christchurch Press, P makes addicts human crime waves

    If you would like to comment on this issue please click >>>

    Your Comments:

    Reader’s comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click to view >>>.

  • Muriel Newman: Rich Country – Poor Families

    http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly25.htm

    1 April 06
    Rich Country – Poor Families

    In a sense, New Zealand is one of the richest countries on earth. We have a great climate, beautiful countryside, and a more leisurely pace of life. Our people are friendly, hard working and caring. We are close to each other in a way that comes from being a small country remote from the rest of the world.

    On top of that, we have a wealth of natural resources, we are great innovators and entrepreneurs, and we have established international recognition for our creativity and achievement in a multitude of fields of endeavour.

    So why is it that so many New Zealanders have a deep-seated sense of foreboding about the future? Sure, it could be the negative growth (no economic growth recorded in the second half of last year) or the rapidly falling dollar (the Minister of Finance sent officials to Japan last year to talk the dollar down). Maybe it’s the burgeoning balance of payments deficit (foreign debt grows as the dollar falls), or the rising price of petrol (adding in today’s 1c petrol tax increase, 91 octane is expected to rise to $1.62 a litre). But I suspect that the issues that are driving that sense of gloom are much more personal.

    At the heart of the problem appears to be a growing sense of despair about the state of the New Zealand family. As a country with a strong tradition of two-parent married families, many New Zealanders feel that Labour’s interference in family matters has been detrimental. In particular, law changes introduced as part of their social engineering agenda are manifesting themselves in negative ways.

    There is a new reticence for young people to commit themselves to marriage – why bother, when de-facto relationships have the same legal privilege as marriage? Yet common sense tells us that marriage signals a commitment for life, giving young women, in particular, the promise of stability and security they need in order to begin thinking about starting a family.

    There is also a new tendency for relationships to break up just before the three-year joint property claim thresh-hold is reached. Couples who are not quite sure whether things will work out between them, are not prepared to take the risk of staying together if it means signing over half of their assets.

    With the Domestic Purposes Benefit already incentivising the massive breakdown of the family, these more recent changes are making the situation worse by giving rise to more unstable, transient relationships. It is therefore little wonder we are seeing an escalation in child abuse and domestic violence as well as the fall-out from the breakdown of stable families – marginalized fathers, alienated children, and excluded grandparents.

    Just this week, New Zealand’s top Family Court judge said that violence in the home is blighting the country’s image as a good place to raise children. Yet I do not hear the Judge – or any of the other professionals who work in this field – calling for a change to the policies that are driving this social collapse.

    And, with Labour’s new family welfare package coming into effect today, resulting in 350,000 families receiving income support, we urgently need to review the wisdom of massive government interference in the family, before more lives are damaged or lost.

    A new publication released by the British think tank Civitas this week, examines the wisdom of state interference in the family from an international perspective. In her book Family Policy, Family Changes, Patricia Morgan compares the state of the family in Sweden, Italy and Britain, and concludes that families thrive in countries where there is less government interference.

    In Britain, where an anti-marriage agenda is being strongly promoted by the public service, universities and government funded social agencies, family problems are rife, with Britain topping the league tables in several of the most worrying indicators of breakdown, including divorce and teenage pregnancy. In Sweden, where a comprehensive social engineering programme has transferred many family responsibilities to the state – to a degree unseen outside of the Soviet bloc – thereare even higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation than Britain.

    Italy, however, has effectively had no government intervention into the family, and is still the home of the traditional family unit. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, including teenage pregnancies, are extremely low. Cohabitation is so rare as to be difficult to measure. Young people live with their parents until they get married, and, for most women, marriage will represent their first living-together relationship.

    While government interference in the family is a cause of major concern, there are many other matters that are driving that feeling of despondency felt by many New Zealanders. In particular, there is an overbearing sense that things could be so much better, especially in those important areas that the government is responsible for.

    With 12,000 hospital beds and 12,000 hospital managers and administrators is the growth in New Zealand’s hospital waiting lists being caused by too much bureaucracy? Are we confident that our welfare system is working properly when we all know fit and healthy young men and women who are languishing on benefits? Would primary and secondary school education improve if vouchers were introduced in order to give parents the same choice that they currently have at pre-school and tertiary level?

    And why don’t we take a common sense approach to the small business sector – the engine room of our economy – by freeing them up from the mountains of unnecessary cost and red tape that inhibits their growth and productivity? Why not lower taxes across the board not only to boost the economy and create a competitive advantage for Kiwi businesses, but also to establish New Zealand as an attractive destination for international business?

    There is so much that can be done to solve those problems that are holding us back – as a nation that responds quickly to positive incentives, with good leadership and sensible ideas, we could really fly!

    The NZCPD guest comment this week comes from Sir Roger Douglas who outlined to the ACT Party conference last week, the importance of creating a vision for a better New Zealand (View >>>).

    Printer friendly version (PDF) View >>>

    This weeks poll. The poll this week asks do you think that the family related policies that Labour has introduced are good for the country? To take part in our online poll >>>

  • More Support for Referendum

    http://republicans.org.nz/2008/mt-albert-launch-wayne-hawkins/

    Remember Sue Bradford’s amendment to the Crimes Act, the anti smacking bill?

    Eighty per cent of you said you didn’t want it.

    So what did the parliamentarians do? They passed it against your wishes.

    That bill should have gone to a binding National Referendum.

    You should have a chance to have your say.

    If we had been in power we would have done that, and your decision would have been binding.

    We promise you this. As soon as we gain a position of influence we will press for a binding national referendum on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.

    Dave Llewell believes in restoring the family in New Zealand and supporting real fathering.

  • Comments from Ruby Harrold-Claesson on Deborah Coddington: Violence so ingrained

    A lot of what Deborah Coddington has written in her article (see below) is completely irrelevant. Deborah Coddington, Sue Bradford and the other ideologically, politically correct advocates brains are so twisted that they can’t see the difference between violence and discipline. They portray good as evil, but they are the ones spreading evil in our world. They refuse to learn from what is happening in Sweden – the pioneer in “soft child upbringing”. Thomas Michelsen,  would have been alive today – but for the anti-smacking law.

    Thomas Michelsen, 15, was clubbed to death by two Hungarian immigrant brothers in a school yard in Bjuv (Skåne) on Sunday November 20, 1994. “I will never forget the ‘kick’” one of the brothers said during the police investigation. After they had killed Thomas, the brothers went and ate at a pizzeria. Cf Youngsters tortured 55-year-old to death. They filmed when disabled man begged for his life. The youngsters went home and ate in between the battering sessions.

    The shooting in Rödeby and the Riccardo Campogiani killing – both on October 6, 2007, and most of the other incidents of youth violence would not have taken place – but for the anti-smacking law.

    Here’s a refreshing ‘mea culpa’ from one of the people, if not the person, who way back originally inspired what has become ‘Child protection’ hysteria in the UK!:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1033483/I-launched-Childline-protect-vulnerable–unleashed-politically-correct-monster.html

    ‘I launched Childline to protect the most vulnerable – but unleashed a politically correct monster’

    By Esther Rantzen

    9th July 2008

    By the way, have you seen the following articles (both linked to the NCHR’s web site)?

    Child protection damages public health
    Press Release 21st May 2008

    Child protection
    By Jean Robinson

    Keep up your good work.

    All the best
    Ruby


    Deborah Coddington: Violence so ingrained

    – that’s the real tragedy

    5:00AM Sunday July 13, 2008
    By     Deborah Coddington

    Why are we aghast at the revelation Tony Veitch beat his partner so badly she reportedly ended up in a wheelchair? This is New Zealand, remember, violence is our answer to everything. Every other morning we wake to news that another child is “fighting for its life” in Starship Hospital and “police are investigating” suspicious injuries. Or worse, another child has died at the hands of his or her “caregivers” (a misnomer, if ever there was one).

    Physical and sexual abuse of children is so rife we’ve given up trying to do anything about it.

    The Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, a genuinely well-intentioned woman, spends more time as commissioner of studies and reports than actively campaigning against cruelty to children.

    Why not a children’s commissioner visiting every school in the country, giving every child her phone number, telling them to call her if someone so much as threatens to lay a hand on them in anger or lust?

    Dream on, Coddington. This is a country where the only petition in recent years to gain enough signatures to repeal a law was one which advocated the smacking of children (to Kiro’s credit, she spoke out against this campaign to bring back Section 59 of the Crimes Act).

    We water down the horror of violence within families by calling it “domestic violence”, much like we make pussy cats more acceptable than their spitting, clawing, yowling feral cousins, by defining our pets as domesticated.

    Maybe we’re shocked Veitch paid hush money to his former partner – $100,000 we’re told – to “compensate” for her trauma and loss of income. He’s not the first wealthy abuser to pay to keep the public away from his shame, but truth has a nasty habit of coming out.

    Sadly, violence is everywhere in this Godless country – the rich and famous are not exempt. Every single night children are cowering in their bedrooms, hiding under the blankets trying to block out the noise of Mum and Dad (if he’s their real dad) yelling at each other, chasing each other around the house, pushing, belting and kicking each other.

    These kids don’t get paid hush money, but nonetheless they go to school the next day and pretend nothing happened. They kid themselves their home life is as happy as today’s television equivalent of my era’s Brady Bunch.

    Those kids grow up, become criminals, and Sensible Sentencing advocates more violence, demanding incarceration with hard labour. Yeah, like that will make a difference to someone who’s never heard a kind word of praise. As Celia Lashlie wrote in her book Journey to Prison, we imprison criminals as punishment, not for punishment.

    What happened after the violent attacks against Asian people in South Auckland? Calls for more violence by some 10,000 members of the Asian community, angry because politicians aren’t lining up anyone who looks like a thug and locking them up if they’re even thinking about being naughty. And because he viewed the New Zealand police force as so ineffectual, Peter Low, leader of this anti-crime organisation, threatened to bring in the Triads, advising Asian people to defend themselves with violence.

    Er, excuse me, but aren’t most violent crimes fuelled by methamphetamine addiction, and isn’t 90 per cent of that drug’s importation carried out by Asian gangs?

    Low was quickly ridiculed, but unionist Beven Hanlon wasn’t when he called for prison guards to be armed, preferably with taser guns, after an inmate badly injured a guard with a yard broom.

    In sport, violence is called biffo; if you’re an All Black you get a growling. In New Zealand, traffic violence is called “I own a bigger car so you can’t change lanes”. What did Sir Edmund Hillary say when he reached the top of Everest? “We knocked the bugger off.”

    Last week I was appearing on Willie Jackson’s Eye to Eye programme and another guest, whom I’d never met, greeted me with, “My brother hates you”.

    Veitch isn’t the first high-profile New Zealander to beat up his partner, and he won’t be the last. If anything good comes of this tragedy, it’s that New Zealanders face up to the intrinsic violence in our national culture. Goodness me, a pig just flew past my window.

    * deb.coddington@xtra.co.nz

  • Family First: CAN YOU HELP US?

    17 Jul 2008

    CAN YOU HELP US

    ‘SLEDGEHAMMER’

    A FEW MYTHS

    Myth #1 : There have been no prosecutions under the new anti-smacking law


    FALSE

    Myth #2 : The anti-smacking law has not resulted in good parents being investigated and interrogated by the police or CYF


    FALSE

    We have evidence of a number of examples that expose these myths, including:

    * a father separated from his 2 kids for 6 months by CYF because of malicious claims by mother that he had smacked them – CYF eventually reallowed 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 grandfather prosecuted and convicted because of tipping his defiant grandson out of a bean bag-type chair to get him moving
    * 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 physically restrained 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 – up to 5% of our cases. Any child who mentions to a school teacher that they have been smacked or touched in any physical way is brought under investigation and their names are indelibly logged onto our data base as a potential ‘abuser’ . I really feel sorry for these ‘good parents’ because of the fear that we as an organisation now engendering upon their parenting practise. Sadly good parents are being lumped in together with the really bad ones.”

    NZ’ers deserve to be told

    the truth.

    WOULD YOU CONSIDER HELPING FUND FULL PAGE

    ADS IN SUNDAY STAR TIMES and NZ HERALD

    (giving nationwide coverage)

    We need to raise $13-14,000 by the beginning of next week to achieve this.

    If you would like to invest in helping us ‘SLEDGEHAMMER THE MYTHS’

    CLICK HERE

    Every little bit helps . (All donations qualify for the 33% tax donation rebate.)

    Thanks for your support and consideration. We must do all we can to defend the role of parents and the well-being of our children and families in NZ.

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Mum beat girl, terrorised her with knife

    This is child abuse not reasonable force by way of correction:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4620389a11.html

    Mum beat girl, terrorised her with knife

    Wednesday, 16 July 2008

    A Tauranga mother, who repeatedly beat her 12-year-old daughter and once held a knife to her throat because of “back-chatting” and behavioural problems, has been sentenced to home detention.

    In Tauranga District Court yesterday, Judge Stan Thorburn told Lucille Nelson, 41, who in May pleaded guilty to charges of assault on a child and assault with a stabbing weapon, that ordinarily her offending would have attracted a prison sentence.

    But in imposing home detention he took into account that Nelson was contrite, admitted her wrongdoing and accepted that she needed help.

    “Clearly there was a hugely complicated family situation, which lucky for the little girl is now out in the open, some of which pertains to her father,” he said.

    “The burden on this little girl’s life from this must have been absolutely horrendous. . . Hopefully over time you can start to reconstruct your relationship with your daughter.”

    Judge Thorburn told Nelson that while on home detention, she would undertake a “comprehensive set” of rehabilitation programmes including one on anger-management and would have to fulfil her parental obligations as directed by Child, Youth and Family (CYF).

    During her sentence Nelson must abstain from alcohol and non-prescribed drugs.

    According to the police summary of facts, on October 17 the victim was living with her mother, father and siblings.

    The girl confided to a teacher at her school that she was beaten regularly by her mother and CYF was notified.

    Two days later the victim disclosed to a CFY interviewer that from the start of January 2007 Nelson began giving her numerous beatings, punching her around the head, legs and arms with a clenched fist.

    As a result she received minor bruises and was sore for days and would wear long-sleeved tops and trousers to hide the bruises.

    On one occasion last year she said her mother came into her room holding a knife, pushed her on to the bed, climbed on top of her and put the knife to her throat.

    When her father came into the room, Nelson got off her and the little girl was able to escape.

    When spoken to by police in February, Nelson admitted she sometimes hit her daughter with a fist or open hand with such force that it hurt her hand but said she did so because the girl back-chatted her and had behavioural problems.

    – NZPA