Family Integrity

Author: HEF Admin

  • Dominion Post Editorial

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4359329a26494.html

    Editorial: Labour’s lesson in innovation

    The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 January 2008When Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason “flicked” his three-year-old son on the ear he thought he was giving him a lesson about road safety. Don’t ride your bike near the road when you’re told not to. What he was actually getting was a firsthand look at the Government’s anti-smacking legislation in operation, The Dominion Post writes.

    A nearby teacher took umbrage at his actions, an off-duty policewoman rang the office and, minutes later, Mr Mason found himself surrounded by six police officers.

    “They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me,” he said. “It was pretty bizarre.”

    In time Mr Mason may discover, like many parents before him, that there are other, more effective ways to discipline his children and keep them safe.

    If the anti-smacking legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, hastens that process it will have served a useful purpose.

    But just as there is no such thing as a perfect child, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Like children, parents get tired and irritable. Like children, parents occasionally do things they later regret.

    But nothing that Mr Mason did appears to warrant the attention of six police officers, at least five more than the ordinary citizen can expect to show an interest when reporting a theft, burglary or assault.

    Nor do his actions appear to warrant the warning that has now been placed on his record, though that could change as a result of a police review of discrepancies between Mr Mason’s story and those of witnesses.

    When the anti-smacking legislation was steered through Parliament last year, Ms Bradford and her Labour allies assured the public that the law change would not criminalise parents who administered a light smack to their children.

    Technically they are correct in Mr Mason’s case. He has not been charged. But he has been stigmatised, something that is likely to be of almost as much concern to the Government as it is to Mr Mason.

    Labour believes the initial furore over the anti-smacking legislation has died down now that it has been in place for more than six months.

    But publicity about such cases revives the damaging spectre of a nanny state interfering in the private affairs of citizens.

    When voters go to the polls later this year they will not recall that National voted for the legislation alongside Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party as a result of a last-minute deal with its leader John Key, but that it was Labour and its allies who pushed the bill through, just as it was Labour that took the lead in legalising prostitution, establishing civil unions, banning unhealthy food from school tuckshops and outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants.

    All are initiatives that fit with New Zealand’s tradition of pioneering social legislation, a tradition that began when New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote.

    But politicians with long careers in mind know there is only so much innovation the public is prepared to put up with.

    Labour could yet pay a price for going too far too fast.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Read Lindsay Mitchell’s comments on this editorial here:
    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-about-pion

  • Where is the support for good Parents?

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0801/S00090.htm

    Press Release: The Family Party
    http://www.thefamilyparty.org.nz

    Where is the support for good Parents raising their children?

    Most good parents would confirm that bringing up children in 2008 brings many challenges.

    “A comment by the Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro commending the public for intervening in a father’s discipline of his child is a worrying trend that concerns many good parents,” said the deputy leader of The Family Party, Paul Adams.

    “I agree all the facts are not known, however let’s put our self in the fathers shoes for a moment.” Adams continued.

    “Here is a father taking time out to take his two young sons on a biking outing, apparently a regular occurrence. This surely is to be commended. The younger son (2 years) has an accident beside the roadway and is hurt. The second son (3 years) does not understand the seriousness of the situation and the father being responsible for both of his sons, handles the situation in a manner he felt was appropriate for the safety of both boys.”

    Adams says,” The Children’s Commissioner is NOT the authority on child raising – parents are. These parents need all the help that they can get. The emerging trend that the state knows best for all children is a dangerous fallacy.”

    The Family Party has been actively door knocking in the Mangere electorate. A major concern is this anti-smacking law, which was opposed by many New Zealanders but forced through by the current Government.

    “There is genuine fear and uncertainty amongst parents who have used traditional methods of corrective discipline such as smacking. Based on what I’ve seen, these are decent, law-abiding parents who know the difference between a smack and abuse. Nevertheless, there is a sense of disempowerment because parents fear being criminalised if they hold on to their traditional values and methods of discipline.

    “The reality is we either encourage parents to discipline their children while they are young, or sadly, as in the case of too many New Zealanders the state will discipline them when they are older. Personally I prefer loving parental correction, rather than this over the top anti parent legislation we currently have to deal with.”

  • Blog-Section59

    Update May 2009:

    It seems we didn’t have all the facts. It would now seem that this is another child abuse case since the Section 59 vote.

    Under the old Section 59 I suspect that the verdict would have been the same. The father would have been tried under a jury and found guilty.

    Only now under the new Section 59 any parent who uses any force to correct their child is suspect.

    From:

    http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-parental-authority-law.html

    Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father

    Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys – Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.

    This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.

    As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike – and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.

    Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.

    An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.

    One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad’s head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?…

    ——————————–

    Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):

    Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be “marched down to the slammer.”

    Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.

    from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz

    Cindy Kiro, “Children’s Commissioner”:

    Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.

    “The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”

    from http://www.nzherald.co.nz

    ——————————–

    Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro’s role as “children’s commissioner” was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.

    Jimmy Mason:

    “It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”

    “[The police officers] didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”
    “It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater. There’s an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can’t flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection.”

    He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

    from http://www.stuff.co.nz

    ——————————–

    Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.

  • Blog-halfdone

    From:

    http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/i-like-the-big-brother-society-kiro/

    “I Like the Big Brother Society” – Kiro

    Apparently Cindy Kiro is not only ok with the “Big Brother” dobbing in of parents trying to do their jobs, but she is actually pleased people are doing it.

    Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.

    …

    “My office strongly supported the law change to section 59 because all the evidence points to physical punishment as ineffective and in the hands of some people, dangerous.”

    Heh, here’s where the lie gets mixed with the truth. Physical punishment was not what was banned – reasonable force as physical punishment was banned. No one ever suggested that unreasonable force (which is not “dangerous” by definition) should not be illegal.

    Dr Kiro said it was important not to jump to conclusions and view what facts had been presented in the case.

    Great! so I guess we won’t be seeing more quotes like this then:

    She told Radio New Zealand the school was “irresponsible” and “I don’t think
    the school should be doing that.” The same criticism was reported in newspapers throughout New Zealand. On national television she described me as “seriously misguided”. All that despite not knowing what I had done. All that despite the law under which she works requiring her not to “make any comment that is adverse to a person if the Commissioner has not given the person an opportunity to be heard.” When I asked her about the illegality of her comments she would not reply. It was just one of many things she won’t include in the “discussion” she initiated.

    I guess we shouldn’t examine the good doctor too carefully…

    “The incident was such that at least two bystanders contacted police.

    One was a teacher and the other an off-duty police officer and if they were concerned, then I believe there was something to be concerned about.”

    On the other hand, the teacher may be a socialist busy-body, who bullied the policeman into calling up his mates for no reason. Yet another mark off the reputation of the teaching profession.

    She said she was especially concerned when she heard the punishment included hitting the child’s head.

    “The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”

    Technically, the ear is on the head.

    If parents needed information about how to discipline children without the use of physical punishment, they could contact the commissioner’s office for information, Dr Kiro said.

    Funny how Ms Kiro doesn’t share any of that wisdom with us here. Frankly I think most parents would rather walk a mile over hot coals than walk into that office and ask for “help” from a woman who is only interested in persecuting good parents, ignoring her statuary obligation* to investigate bad ones.

    *link to Big News post pending.

  • Blog-darrenrickard

    From:

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-smacking-law-puts-young-boy-at.html

    Anti smacking law puts young boy at risk

    The New Zealand Labour Party’s chickens have finally come home to roost in a monumental way. The removal of section 59 or the “anti smacking bill”, as it has become commonly known, midway through last year, has had another casualty, perhaps the worst one so far.

    A Christchurch father who disciplined his 3 year old son who put his younger brother at risk, and was subsequently injured, was surrounded by six police officers minutes after a teacher(who would have guessed) witnessing the flick of the ear by the father informed an off duty female cop.

    The father has been left with a warning by officers and a “black mark” noted on police records for attempting to keep his children safe from harm.

    Apart from the obvious overkill by the six police attending and the stupidity of the off duty officer and teacher, the trauma that the 2 kids must have gone through seeing their father subject to extreme police harassment cannot be overstated.

    The father’s children will be getting a lesson from the whole incident that their dad has done something wrong, and that the lessons that he is trying to teach them are not to be believed.

    When you undermine a parents authority in such a public way you risk that parents ability to bring up children in an appropriate way and ultimately keep them safe from harm, be it physical, psychological or emotional.

    The politicians who trumpeted this sleazy law, Sue Bradford, Helen Clark and the various state bureaucratic heads and b grade celebrities, with the moronic support of the National Party are embarrassingly silent about this latest turn of events.

    Those in support of the bill said that nothing like this would happen, it has, and after all, the sensible and intelligent amongst us we know it was designed to stop what this father did.

    Those that supported this law change unflaggingly, should be voted against in the 2008 Election.

    Labour, NZ First, The Maori Party, Progressives and Peter Dunne’s Motley Crew do not deserve your vote on this law change alone.

    John Key must be true to his word and repeal this change to sensible parenting and put the control of parenting back where it belongs.

    In parents hands.

    Related reading on Political Animal:

    Trevor Mallard’s Anti Violence Advert

  • Interesting blogs

    Interesting blogs

    Some interesting blogs relating to the father giving his son a flick on the ear and 6, yes, six police turning up minutes later.

    http://thepauapalace.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/father-wants-warning-removed-from-record/

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/six_police_officers_for_smacking_complaint.html

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/

    http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-anti-smacking-law-turning-us-into.html

    http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/doing-bradford.html

    http://obaldnz.blogspot.com/2008/01/slim-pickings.html

    http://www.gog.org.nz/2008/01/15/another-smack-in-the-face-for-democracy/

  • Media – Father warned

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4354765a10.html
    Father warned for disciplining boy, 3

    By PHIL HAMILTON – The Press | Monday, 14 January 2008

    A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son’s ear in public as a reprimand.

    Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike.

    The toddler took off down a ramp and was followed by his brother, Zach, two, who was also on a new bike. Seth made the tight corner but Zach did not, and injured his eye.

    “Seth just wanted to go on riding. He didn’t realise the seriousness of it with the youngest one slipping in and out of consciousness,” Mason said.

    “So I turned to Seth and flicked him on the ear and told him to shut up while we fixed up the young one,” Mason said.

    A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers.

    “They were going to arrest me and were trying to ascertain whether it was safe for the kids to go home with me,” he said.

    “It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”

    Mason said he took his sons biking every day and they needed to obey his instructions to the letter in order to stay safe.

    “When I say ‘stop’ to the kids they have got to stop,” he said. “I said to the cops that I need to impress upon him (Seth) what he did was wrong and I need to impress it on him straight away and asked them how they suggested I do it.

    “They didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”

    In the end, Mason was not charged but he was told that a warning would go on his record for hitting his child.

    “It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater.

    “There’s an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can’t flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection.”

    He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.

    He felt sorry for the police having to administer the amended child-discipline law which came into force in June last year.

    Inspector Rick Jury said he could not discuss individual cases but the law gave the police some discretion.

    “It says every parent is justified in using force if it’s reasonable in the circumstances,” he said. One of the specific clauses allowing some force was for the purposes of preventing or minimising harm, and the legislation allowed police to make a determination over whether it was “inconsequential” and not in the public interest to prosecute.

    Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said cases like this showed the law was an ass.

    “It just seems totally over the top,” he said. “That’s the problem with this law, it’s lost the common-sense element. It’s a feel-good law change but has done nothing to protect kids who are actually being abused.”

    A police spokeswoman said a review since the amendment found that between June and September last year police were called to three smacking incidents and 12 minor acts of physical discipline. The 15 cases were determined to be “inconsequential” and not worth prosecuting, although nine warnings were issued.

  • Normal Families-Police/CYFs since Section 59 amended

    Some Normal Families caught up with Police and CYFs since Section 59 amended

    Check out earlier cases here:

    http://anti-matters.net/2007/normal-familiespolice-and-cyfs-since-section-59-amended

     

     

    Plus

    DECEMER 2007

    **Grandmother Warned by Police After Grabbing Grandchild Running onto Road South Auckland. This grandmother had to prevent her 2 year old grandson from running onto the road by grabbing his arm and pulling him back to the footpath. She was petrified that her grandson could be run over. A police officer witnessed her and said she was breaking the law by grabbing him. She was let off with a warning but was told that if it ever happened again, they would prosecute her. She had recently lost a friend’s child (6) to a train crash. (Takanini) She now puts him in the pram to avoid getting arrested. Her family is horrified by what’s happened and she’s now concerned about taking her grandchildren out in public. She feels she’s been publicly humiliated. Another grandmother came up to her and said she’d been interviewed by the police for giving her 4 year old grandson a smack on the bottom in Countdown for swearing at her. The woman was taken to the police station to be interviewed. http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html

    ** Passerby Reports Squealing Child Auckland. Tanya had two police officers arrive on her doorstep as she was hosting visitors on a Saturday night. The police informed her that a ‘passer by’ had heard a child being smacked and subsequently screaming. They could not tell the mum what day this occurred on, what time or who the person was. She explained to them that her 9 year old daughter squeals when she plays, particularly when outside on the trampoline with her brother. She likes to play hard with her 13 year old brother – and inevitably she sometimes gets hurts – and performs! The mum says the passer-by could have heard her children ‘playing’ – “do I have to stop them having fun??” “We don’t smack our kids (or if we have in the past, it has been minor) and this incident did not occur. I informed the officers accordingly. They insisted that they needed to see my daughter. I informed them that she was now with her father as we share custody. I gave them full contact details. They told me they would have to go around there to check she was OK.” “I have found the whole episode to be extremely distressing. I felt completely humiliated to literally be accused of child abuse and have now found it hard to sleep at night at it has upset me so much – how I look after and care for my children is being questioned. On hearsay I am now a guilty person. This new law is ending up with a lot of good innocent parents being wrongfully accused. This law needs to be changed.” http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html\

    ** We also know of a family where CYFs has taken the daughter because she was smacked when she swore at her mother.

    ** Eight year old’s Class Taught to Dob in Parents – Behaviour Deteriorates
    Hawkes Bay    . The police went to a local primary school and did a session on “Keeping Ourselves Safe.” During the session, the policeman told this particular class of 7 and 8 year olds that parents couldn’t smack them, and that if they did, they should immediately tell the teacher. This was not the only school in the area where this message was given. Within the next few days, this solo mum’s 8 year old daughter who had been in this session and who had had a ‘clean’ record at school all year was stood down for kicking the teacher in the leg. She also kept telling her mother “you can’t make me do anything – you can’t smack me”, following the lesson. Her older child (10) also told the mother that “you can’t make me go to school.”
    The mother went to the police to clarify what they had said and to tell them the difficulties she’d had since their visit to the school. The Sergeant was obliging and said he would sort it out by sending the officer involved to speak to the girls and reinstate her authority. An angry phone call from the officer followed to the mother, questioning whether she had a problem with the smacking law. Two days later 2 male officers arrived to supposedly reinstate the mother’s authority but instead they questioned her parenting skills and told her they had investigated her background with a variety of community organisations. They had her in tears and she found them intimidating and degrading. They also proceeded to tell the children their rights. Yet amazingly the police said to the mother the daughter deserved a smack after kicking the teacher. The mother in desperation at her treatment spoke to her local MP, & was then contacted by the District Commander of the Police who told her not to go complaining to the MP because he had better things to do. The mother was traumatised by all this, and has laid a formal complaint with the Police but to no avail. http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html

    **Mother Investigated After 4 Year Old Smacked For Running Out on Road West Auckland Jackie’s 4 year old ran across the road outside a busy supermarket when she saw a friend on other side of road. The mum smacked her on the bottom once to show her how dangerous her actions were. A member of the public challenged the way she had disciplined her child, took her vehicle registration, and the mum was visited by police two days later. She felt like a criminal and embarrassed by it all. She said “please don’t take my daughter” to the police. They did a police check to see if it had happened before. The Police (who had kids as well) told the mum they felt it was a waste of time. The daughter said “what’s wrong mummy,” and was upset by it all. http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/cases.html

    JANUARY 2008
    **Father warned for disciplining boy, 3. A Christchurch father is fuming after he received a police warning for hitting a child after he flicked his son’s ear in public as a reprimand. Professional musician Jimmy Mason flicked the ear of his son, Seth, at the Bridge of Remembrance just before Christmas after the three-year-old disobeyed his instructions while riding his new bike….A nearby teacher took umbrage, an off-duty policewoman rang the incident in and in minutes later Mason was surrounded by six police officers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4354765a10.html