Author: HEF Admin

  • Smacking petition falls short

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501944a10.html

    Smacking petition falls short

    By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 29 April 2008Organisers of a petition to force a smacking referendum have been dealt a major blow after failing to gather enough signatures.

    They now have two more months to collect enough signatures.

    The petition needed 280,275 signatures to force a referendum but fell short after a number were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory’s date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times.

    In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said an audit of signatures found that no more than 269,500 were eligible. That is a shortfall of about 15,500 signatures.

    Family First spokesman Bob McCroskie appeared confident that any shortfall would easily be made up in the two months available.

    He said politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of parents.

    “The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws.”

    The petition by Sheryl Savill asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    If the organisers succeed in collecting the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible electors they will be able to force a referendum at the next election, though its results will be non-binding.

    “““““““““““““““““““““

    If you haven’t signed the petition yet and would like to, please go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it then sign it and send it to the address on the website.

  • Politicians Should Respond Now, Not Later, to Smacking Referendum

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00423.htm 

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 April 2008

    Politicians Should Respond Now, Not Later, to Smacking Referendum

    Family First NZ says that the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents.

    “The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “In passing the law, they were guilty of abusing child abuse laws.”

    Today will confirm that the numbers are sufficient for a Referendum to be forced at the upcoming general election, and if there is any shortfall, it will be minimal and the organizers have two months to collect the shortfall.

    “10% of NZ voters have taken time to demand a response to their objection to this bad lawmaking, and Family First eagerly awaits the first brave and democratic response from the political parties to correct this ideologically flawed law.”

    When United Future’s Peter Dunne presented a 42,000 signature petition last year calling on daylight saving to be extended by 3 weeks, he said “There is no doubt that more daylight saving is what New Zealanders want, and the Internal Affairs Minister is going to be extremely hard-pressed to do anything other than heed our call.”

    “The government almost tripped over itself in its rush to amend the law.”

    “With almost eight times more signatures on this petition, it is now time to amend the anti-smacking law, to leave good parents alone, and to target the real causes of child abuse and actual child abusers.”

    ENDS


    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process

    Andy has done a great job of presenting this at:

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/04/clearing-up-confusion-over-referendum.html

    Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process

    As per my last post, there is obviously a level of confusion over the future of the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law. Below I have a copy of the Referendum Process from the Parliament website (you can download a PDF version by clicking here). I have added some comments to the chart. I’m just focussing on the top petition question,

    “Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?”

    Some people have been unsure of what the question for the Referendum means. It is saying, “should a smack be illegal?” And my answer, and the answer of the aproximately 70% plus New Zealanders opposed to this draconian home-invasion law will be a most definite NO.

    Click here for a Press Release from Larry Baldock (Petition Organiser), where he comments on the issue.

  • Referendum Scaremongering from the Media

    From:

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/04/referendum-scaremongering-from-media.html

    Referendum Scaremongering from the Media

    “Thousands of pro-smacking signatures invalid” – blares the headline on the NewstalkZB website. Firstly, it is absolutely normal in any petition, for a percentage of signatures to be declared invalid. Secondly, what is this reference to “pro-smacking signatures?” The question asked on the petition, “Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand” is as much pro-smacking as Sue Bradford is pro-smacking. The article continues, stating:

    “It appears a decision on whether there will be a public referendum on the anti-smacking law will come down to the wire… …it has been discovered that thousands of the signatures are invalid and there may not be enough to reach the required level.” – NewstalkZB, 24 April

    TV3 joins in the scaremongering, with the following statement:

    “Opponents of the law that bans smacking are waiting anxiously to find out whether they have collected enough valid signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum.” – TV3, 24 April

    Neither of these two statements are correct. The law states that, following the counting of the signatures, the petition organiser is granted an extra two months to collect the number of signatures which has been found to be lacking. In this case, the number of signatures lacking is estimated to be about 3,000. Larry Baldock will have a good buffer of signatures by now, and when the Clerk tells us how many signatures we are short of (or in excess of) the required number, it will not be a problem.

  • Horrific injuries inflicted on 15-day-old son

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10505966

    Horrific injuries inflicted on 15-day-old son

    10:17AM Thursday April 24, 2008

    No one could forget photographs of the horrific injuries he inflicted on his 15-day-old son, a judge told a Taranaki man yesterday.

    The comment came during sentencing of slaughterman Alexander Hata Canterbury-Davies, 35, of Hawera, for sexually violating and injuring his baby son with intent, assaulting his former partner, and perverting the course of justice.

    The little boy suffered severe bruising from his waist to knees, as well as other injuries, Judge Allan Roberts was told in New Plymouth District Court, the Taranaki Daily News reported.

    He slammed Canterbury-Davies, who stood in the dock with his arms crossed defiantly, for not showing any remorse for his “inconceivable behaviour”.

    The baby’s mother had asked the court to lift the automatic suppression of her former partner’s name that would have stood to protect the identity of the child.

    Crown prosecutor James Gurnick reminded Judge Roberts that a doctor that examined the child had never seen bruising so extreme in a baby of that age.

    He said the baby’s mother was in a state of shock after the attack and could not believe Canterbury-Davies was capable of doing such a thing.

    Defence counsel Susan Hughes QC said that there was no sexual intent in the serious assault.

    “I doubt if a more unusual case than this will ever come before the courts,” she said.

    Ms Hughes believed the offending could be traced to her client’s frustration and incompetence as a parent on a night that had simply “spiralled out of control”.

    – NZPA

  • Anti-Smacking Law Tragic Failure as Child Abuse Death Rate Continues

    http://menz.org.nz/

    Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

    “While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Before Bradford’s anti-smacking law was passed, there were an average of 7 child abuse deaths per year since 2000. Since the law change less than a year ago, there has already been another seven.”
    They include:

    • Remuera 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
    • a 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown June 2007
    • Tokoroa 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
    • Rotorua 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
    • Manurewa ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007
    • Otahuhu two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007

    They don’t include Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua shot dead in an alleged gang-related drive-by shooting in the month the bill was passed (May 2007)

    “Opponents to Bradford’s anti-smacking law, which included many Plunket, CYF and Barnardos frontline social workers, have been proved right. The law has done nothing to protect at-risk children or to strengthen at-risk families. It has simply made victims of good parents raising good kids.”

    “That’s why the petition demanding a referendum which only required 285,000 signatures was presented last month with over 330,000 signatures. NZ’ers are sick of our leaders “fluffing” around the real issues of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

  • Duckworth-Lewis type mathematical equations may determine referendum outcome at this stage.

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader and anti-smacking petition organiser Larry Baldock confirmed today that the preliminary results from Sheryl Savill’s petition to force a referendum on the question, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?’ was going to be very close to being just under or over the required threshold.

    A total of 324,316 signatures were handed in on Feb 29th. To succeed in forcing a referendum it is required to have the certified signatures of 10% of those enrolled on the electoral role which on that day was 285,027. That would therefore require a success rate of 87.88% from the audit process undertaken by the Chief Registrar of Electors. A random sample of 29,501 signatures was taken and checked individually against the electoral role with 25,754 qualifying as certified correct.

    Mr Baldock said “If I did my own simple maths on those figures we would then estimate that we had a success rate of 87.29%

    “However I am informed by the Clerk that the Government Statistician needs 90 hours to complete a very complicated mathematical formula to officially ascertain the number of correct signatures. I have no idea why this must take so long and whether there will be any great variation from my simple maths. It begins to look like the Duckworth-Lewis system of determining the results in rain shortened One Day Cricket matches, and we all know how they turn out, usually in the other teams favour! said Mr Baldock.

    The final result must be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than next Tuesday April 29th by the Clerk of the House.

  • Kidnapped by government-USA

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62153



    Kidnapped by government


    Posted: April 21, 2008
    © 2008 Given that Mormon readers will probably recall my past references to a former candidate for the White House as Capt. Underoos, it’s not exactly a secret that I harbor little respect for Joseph Smith’s little cult. While all of the Latter Day Saints I’ve ever met have been fine, upstanding individuals, I nevertheless tend to view “The Book of Mormon” as being, for all intents and purposes, the literary and religious equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard’s “Battlefield Earth.”But despite my admitted lack of sympathy for Mormonism, not since the Waco massacre have I been so completely appalled by an American government action. The recent kidnapping of 416 children from their Fundamentalist LDS parents by Texas Child Protective Service agents is a unconscionable abnegation of not only the United States and Texas constitutions, but a rejection of the very meaning of what it is to be an American. For as P.J. O’Rourke rightly declares: “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please.”

    Contrary to what a disturbing percentage of the voting population appears to believe, “protecting the children” is not a legitimate function of government. The concept appears nowhere in any constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic. The state does not own the children whose families happen to reside within its boundaries and it does not possess the right to dictate what is and what is not a proper way for a family to raise its children.

    Consider this absurd justification for the mass kidnappings offered by Angie Voss, the CPS kidnapper in chief, offered as an explanation for the mysterious preference of the abused women to remain with their supposed abusers instead of availing themselves of government shelters: “This population of women has a difficult time making decisions on their own.” If a distaste for decision-making is legitimate grounds for removing children from their mothers, then there won’t be a woman in America left with a child to call her own! For what man has not had a conversation that went like this:

    “Where do you want to eat?”

    “I don’t care. … You decide.”

    “OK, let’s go to that new Chinese place.”

    “No, I don’t want Chinese!”

    “Well, what do you want, then?”

    “I don’t know, whatever you want.”

    Sound the sirens, send in Ms. Voss and her Sturmtruppen, and seize those at-risk kids!

    The disingenuous bigotry of CPS’ action is perhaps best revealed by comparing the pregnancy rates of the supposedly abused teenage girls at the FLDS compound with the rest of the teenage Texan population. Voss stated that five of the 416 children were pregnant or had given birth; assuming that half of the 416 are female, that is a pregnancy rate of 24 per 1,000. The Texas pregnancy rate among women 15 to 19 is 101 per 1,000. It’s also worth noting that the “numerous” pregnant 13-year-olds hypothesized by one government worker mysteriously transformed into five “under 18s” when Voss testified.

    If the family lives of hundreds of American citizens living peacefully can be brutally invaded and destroyed on the basis of a single anonymous phone call that, as WND has reported, increasingly looks to have been a fraud, then every American family is at risk.

    How you raise your children is between you and God alone. It is not a matter for the state or anyone else; it never has been. As this mass kidnapping of FLDS children and incredible violation of due process will almost surely demonstrate over time, government is a ruthless and power-maddened institution that is the very last one capable of serving the interests of the children. No conservative and no religious individual should support this outrageous action, even if adult members of the FLDS community are found to have violated Texas law as well as Texas social norms, because to accept this terrible precedent is to guarantee that future violations of family rights will be committed.

    And as history has shown, the next time it may not be some weird and heretical Mormons in the government’s gun sights, but Jews, homeschoolers or evangelical Christians.

    (more…)