Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Bradford keeps careful watch on parties’ anti-smacking positions

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489168 Monday January 28, 2008
    By Claire Trevett

    Sue Bradford

    Sue Bradford

    Green MP Sue Bradford says she is watching other political parties to make sure their stance on the anti-smacking law does not waver despite attempts by lobby groups to force a referendum on the issue.

    The law – which repealed the defence of reasonable force that parents had for disciplining their children – passed last year with wide cross-party support despite intense lobbying.

    However, the issue is set to rear its head again – Family First requires just 30,000 more signatures by March 1 to get a referendum on it included in this year’s election. Family First yesterday took out full page advertisements in Sunday newspapers to get support.

    A referendum will depend on the organisers getting 300,000 signatures and further scrutiny of the petition to ensure signatures are valid. If it happens, it will not be binding but if there is strong support for repealing the law it will have a strong moral force.

    The law’s original promoter Sue Bradford said she was watching for signs that parties such as National which initially opposed the law, were wavering to try and get the Christian vote.

    “There are a lot more steps to go through to overturn the legislation. In the end it’s up to Parliament to define the law and who knows what shape the next Parliament will be.”

    The bill passed into law by 113 votes to 8 in May last year after a compromise clause negotiated between National’s John Key and Prime Minister Helen Clark meant police would not prosecute for “inconsequential” breaches.

    Yesterday, National leader John Key said until he saw evidence that the compromise was not enough to stop minor incidents being prosecuted, he was happy with the law.

    “We’ve been consistent since the day we signed [the compromise]. But if we start to see good parents being criminalised for lightly smacking then we will change the law.”

    One man has been prosecuted under the new laws – in November last year a 33-year-old Masterton man was sentenced to nine months’ supervision including counselling after pleading guilty to assaulting a boy by grabbing him by the shoulder and smacking him three times.

    Others have been warned, including include musician Jimmy Mason who flicked his 3-year-old son on the ear and was given a caution after a member of the public dobbed him in.

  • Flick gets father charged with assault

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1562476

     

    Flick gets father charged with assault

    Jan 29, 2008 6:19 PM

    Controversy over the new anti-smacking legislation has been revived with police deciding to charge a Christchurch father with assault for flicking his son’s ear.

    Jimmy Mason claims he acted to stop his son riding his bike dangerously but police say he will have to argue that in court. 
     
    “This is how I describe it, hard enough to stop what he was doing, not hard enough to drop him,” says Mason.

    But the incident was seen by several people, including a teacher and an off-duty policeman.

    When they reported it, Mason was given a warning and now police want him in court.

    He will face two charges of assault, police have revealed. Those charges involve two children.

    They are not giving more detail and will not say what convinced them to go ahead with a prosecution. 
     
    But it is bringing back all the arguments over the anti-smacking legislation which came into effect in June last year.

    “People have just somehow got to begin to learn that it is no longer legal in any way in New Zealand to discipline our children with assault, beating and whacking,” says Sue Bradford, Green MP.

    But father of four and anti-bill campaigner Simon Barnett says parents will now fear disciplining their children.

    He is calling for a referendum at the next election.

    “You know the referendum for me would be a brilliant thing. The government will then hear clearly where the country sits and it’s around 80% of parents – normal average everyday reasonable parents – think it’s ok to lightly smack a child for disobedience,” says Barnett.

    Police say anti-smacking legislation or not, Jimmy Mason would still have been charged.

    He will appear in court next month.

  • Blogs

    Some more good blogs:

    http://thepauapalace.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/ear-flicking-dad-charged-with-assault/

    http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2008/01/it-has-begun.html

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/smacking-law-referendum-likely.html

    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/01/family-first-ar.html

    http://swgaeib.blogspot.com/2008/01/cheese-is-12.html

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/child-abuse-is-not-funny.html

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-smacking-could-be-form-of-torture.html 

  • Signing on to change smacking law

    Signing on to change smacking law26.01.2008

    By JOEL FORD MARGUERITE Keir is all for smacking – and she says it is different to hitting.

    The Ohauti woman is among those who have signed a petition seeking a referendum on the controversial law.

    A mother herself, she said she had smacked her own children and that it played an important role in child discipline.

    “You can’t reason with a small child, but a quick sharp smack on the hand says it all. Smacking and hitting are two different things,” she said.

    Maria Calnan, a mother of two from Cherrywood, shared her view, saying she had also used smacking to discipline her children, but only rarely.
     

     
     
    She signed the petition because she felt smacking shouldn’t be treated as a crime.”Abuse is a crime, smacking isn’t. Smacking should be a part of an overall discipline structure,” she said.

    Others said they had signed the petition not because they were totally in support of smacking but because they thought the bill was misguided.

    Dale Jessop, of Omokoroa, said he thought the law needed to be changed.

    “It’s not all bad, but it has to be reformed and seriously looked at,” she said. “Children need discipline but, more importantly, I think they need a stay-at-home mother.”

  • Blogs

    Some good recent blogs to read:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/smacking_law_referendum_likely.htmlhttp://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/green-mp-to-keep-john-key-in-line.html

    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/decent-people/

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/here-is-latest-count-on-petition.html

    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/01/act-voters-and-libertarians-are-not.html

    http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-insult-your-readers-and-lose.html

    http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/decent-people.html

     http://scottkennedy.blogspot.com/2008/01/christian-extremism.html

  • Police seek six after ‘cowardly’ attack

    http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3762124&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection= WANGANUI Police yesterday described an attack by a group of youths on a 20-year-old man as cowardly……..One father who has been a gang member for years said that since Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law, young people have been the perpetrators of serious bashings. The Chronicle spoke to another parent of a teenager who also did not want to be identified about what appears to be an alarming trend of growing youth violence in New Zealand.

    She said she shared wine with her daughter at home to show her how to drink responsibly.

    “When we were young the alcohol content was about three percent, but now it’s gone from five to eight to 12 (percent).

    “Young people cant handle alcohol, have no idea how to drink in moderation, and when you add P (methamphetamine) you’ve got a lethal cocktail that fuels uncontrollable rage,” she said.

    The gang member continued that parents had no power to give their kids a kick in the backside and that the youth saw this eroding of power as (them) being able to do what they wanted without consequences.

    He also said that the six youths who attacked the young man on Sunday morning had “serious problems if they attacked a young fella who was not looking for trouble”.

  • Dad charged with assault for flicking son’s ear

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4379352a10.html

    The Press |

    Tuesday, 29 January 2008

    Professional musician Jimmy Mason has been charged with two counts of assaulting a child after an incident on the Bridge of Remembrance in central Christchurch last month.

    The 49-year-old Christchurch man admitted to flicking his son’s ear to reprimand him for riding dangerously near a busy street on December 19 when he spoke to The Press in an article on January 14, in which he complained about the way the incident was handled by the police.

    Inspector Gary Knowles, the central city area commander, said that charges arose as a result of a review of the evidence after speaking to a number of witnesses.

    Knowles said now the matter is before the court, no further comment would be made.

    Mason has been summonsed to appear in the Christchurch District Court on 12 February 2008.

  • Blog-stephenfranks

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=255

    Bradford’s free speech

    January 28th, 2008

    Sue Bradford wants Family First prosecuted for its weekend ads listing Police threats to parents. She claims Family First have spent more than the $50k in total that a referendum promoter can spend letting citizens know about a citizens initiated referendum.

    This is the same Sue Bradford who thought the Government’s spend of $11.5m on propaganda for the Greens “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign was not enough to get the message across.

    $50k today would not even launch a campaign for a new dog roll. Marketing experts say people need to see an ad six times before the topic starts to register in public consciousness, let alone understand any detail. Bradford knows that.

    There’s a simple explanation for her screeching on this issue. She wants political debate confined to politicians, or under the control of the media gatekeepers. She believes most of the media share her views of what is “appropriate”.

    For Bradford paid advertising must be stopped by the Police even when it is paid for by thousands of concerned working families, because paid advertising bypasses editorial control of what should get public oxygen.

    Some young people support the Greens as a fashion statement. But without Rod Donald they are not just fluffy-minded reminders of what politics might be if the world worked as children wish it did.

    Sue Bradford can be pleasant. She is dedicated. For her, marxist toughmindedness is a duty. The ends justify the means even if that meant lying about what her law meant. She would regret trashing free speech, but denying the masses the right to communicate with each other their misguided concerns about what their political masters are doing is just an unfortunate price to be paid for ensuring they are not misled by bad elements.

  • Anti-smacking petition close to forcing citizen’s referendum

    http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/44473/cat/41/Default.aspx Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:58p.m.

    Green Party MP Sue Bradford Green Party MP Sue Bradford

    video

    		  

    A petition to hold a citizen’s referendum about parents having the right to smack children is gaining momentum along with thousands of signatures.

    The government is not worried, but there are signs it could cause friction between political parties as the issue reignites in election year.

    The petition now has 280,000 signatures – another 20,000 will mean a citizen’s referendum.

    Bob McCoskrie of Family First is confident it will happen, saying: “I’m confident because most sensible New Zealanders know that a smack is not child abuse.”

    Prime Minister Helen Clark does not believe the petition will reach the required 300,000 signatures saying: “It’s really a question for Kiwis – do we keep trying to make our homes a safer place for children or do we abandon the effort? I’m not for abandoning the effort.”

    Green Party MP Sue Bradford says many people have signed the referendum in a climate of hysteria, whipped up by an out of touch lobby group.

    “Family First is increasingly out of step with public opinion and in fact some of the people who signed this petition for the referendum back before my bill went through may have even changed their minds in the intervening period,” says Bradford.

    Bradford’s law outlawing smacking passed by a majority of 113 to 8 votes last May and she is now wary of political parties changing sides in the face of popular opinion.

    The National Party’s John Key, who brokered a compromise on the bill with Labour appears to be positioning himself to change his tune if necessary. He says: “If the law ends up being in a position where good parents end up being criminalised for lightly smacking their children, we think that is wrong and we would change the law. But I’m still quite confident the law as it was drafted will actually work.”

    If the petition succeeds and a referendum is to be held, it would not be binding. The government would still have the final say.

    The government would also pick when the referendum would take place and it is unlikely to choose any time before election day as it is a reminder of Labour pushing through an unpopular law.

    More on this story: