Author: HEF Admin

  • 27 – 31 July 2007


    31 July 2007 – Gordon Copeland – Band-Aid solutions not enough on child abuse

    http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1138852566622656583

    Band-Aid solutions not enough on child abuse
    Tuesday, 31 July 2007, 11:39 am
    Press Release: Gordon Copeland

    Independent MP Gordon Copeland believes that the Government’s Band-Aid approach to child abuse represents a massive policy failure that needs to be changed and fast.

    “When it comes to child abuse the evidence clearly points to the root cause as being the break down of the family unit,” said Mr Copeland.

    “Fatherlessness is now endemic in New Zealand and nowhere more so than amongst Maori. Some 55% of all Maori children are in fact growing up without a dad at home. That needs to change.”

    “It is actually hard to think of a recent child abuse case in New Zealand where the offender was the biological father of the child. Typically the abuse is carried out by a male who is the boyfriend of the child’s mother.”

    “We need a fence at the top of the cliff approach. Ideally this would involve government subsidies for courses addressing fatherhood, marriage preparation, marriage enrichment and parenting courses across the spectrum from prenatal to teenage years.”

    “Courses need to be delivered at the grass roots level and specifically targeted to reach those who most need them; especially young Maori males.”

    Cut…

    “The overarching policy goal should be a total transformation of family life in New Zealand so that all children are raised in a safe, loving and caring environment – ideally by a married couple.”

    “All of this is really just commonsense. It was clear to practically everyone except the ideological zealots that Sue Bradford’s Smacking Bill would have absolutely no impact at all on the rates of child abuse in New Zealand. The Bill is trite and superficial in the extreme and it is time to look at evidence based policies which get down to the underlying realities if New Zealand’s shameful record on child abuse is going to be changed.”

    ENDS


    31 July 2007 – Stuff – Abused children expelled from kindy for violence

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4146583a11.html

    Abused children expelled from kindy for violence
    By KATHY WEBB – The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 31 July 2007

    Some abused children are becoming so violent they are being expelled from kindergarten or infant classes at school, a Hawke’s Bay paediatrician says.

    Russell Wills, the clinical director of maternal, children and youth health at Hawke’s Bay Hospital, said the effects of violence against children and their mothers went much deeper than physical injuries.

    “The focus is on shaken babies and broken bones,” he said.

    That was serious enough, but a wider and deeper problem was emerging, that of violent children unable to trust adults or relate to other people.

    He was dealing daily with children who had developed severe psychological problems that became permanent if not treated while they were infants or toddlers.

    “By the time a child is 10 you’ve missed the boat.”

    It was becoming common for children to be expelled from kindergarten or the first two years of primary schooling, Dr Wills said.

    Their parents were often poor, estranged from their own families, with little support and few parenting skills.

    Violence was often the only way they knew how to react.

    That spilled over into hospital wards, where parents fought and fathers threatened staff, Dr Wills said.

    In one week he had had to have two fathers kept from the serious care baby unit and the children’s ward.

    Hawke’s Bay health board’s development of a strategy to tackle the region’s high rate of child and domestic violence had worked so well that levels of reporting had rocketed.

    Dr Wills expected 2500 Hawke’s Bay youngsters would be referred to social welfare services this year, 300 of them by the hospital.

    Staff had been trained to identify abuse and ask direct questions about it.

    “There’s a 50 per cent likelihood that if Mum is being beaten, the kids are, and if the kids are being beaten, there’s a 50 per cent chance Mum is too.”

    Domestic violence referrals had increased from 40 a year to 120 as a result of directly confronting women.

    The strategy, called the Hawke’s Bay Family Intervention Programme, had proven so successful it is to be launched nationwide tomorrow by the Health Ministry.

    The Napier-based Sensible Sentencing Trust announced yesterday it was creating a unit within its ranks to push for zero tolerance and tougher jail sentences for child abusers.

    Spokesman Garth McVicar said jail terms for people killing or abusing their children had been woefully inadequate.

    “Our children are unable to defend themselves and Parliament seems to have put this problem in the too-hard basket, and judges are ignoring the public’s cry for deterrent sentences to protect our children,” he said.


    30 July 2007 – nzherald – Your Views

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10454649

    What can be done about NZ’s child abuse problem?
    1:26PM Monday July 30, 2007

    Your Views

    What do you think of Labour’s chances of being re-elected?
    Should players questioning referees at the World Cup be penalised?

    Send us your views

    The Prime Minister has today voiced her concern over the grave issue of child abuse.

    A second Rotorua child – a 12-week-old baby – is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries.

    What can be done to solve the country’s escalating child abuse problem? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:

    Let the New Zealand Herald know your views here and read online others views:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10454649


    30 July 2007 – Family First – Our Silence is Killing Us

    Our Silence is Killing Us

    Each week another New Zealand child’s life is extinguished or damaged because violent parents or caregivers will not meet or can not cope with their responsibilities.

    We are sick and tired of doing nothing while our babies and children are being abused and murdered.

    When our families are messed up, our nation is messed up.

    Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

    Read what happened to little 3 year old Nia from Rotorua who lies in Starship Hospital at the moment

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/nia.html

    Read what happened to 3 year old Ngati from Otara, and the pathetic punishment his mum and step-dad received

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/ngati.html

    Read a 5 point action plan, designed to get the problem away from Politics and political agendas, and into the hands of local communities and organisations.

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/5_point_action_plan.html

    YES! You can do something…

    1. Download and print off the petition forms demanding a Referendum on Child Abuse , and opposing the politicians’ response to child abuse of criminalising good parents!

    Pass it around the office, neighbourhood, church, community organisation – and send it in as soon as possible.

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/CIR%20MAY07.doc
    or
    http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

    MAKE CHILD ABUSE AN ELECTION ISSUE IN ‘08!

    Don’t let it be ‘swept under the carpet’ like the Kahui case.

    2. Please forward this letter to as many people as possible

    Our silence is deafening and our children are suffering.

    No More.

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |


    28 JULY 2007 – Family First – 5-Point Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE
    28 JULY 2007

    5-Point Action Plan to Tackle Child Abuse

    Family First NZ has released a 5-point Action Plan to tackle the high rates of child abuse in NZ.

    “The recent Rotorua case which has shocked the nation, in a similar way to the Kahui case, highlights the need for drastic action in this area,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    The Action Plan includes:

    1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are working with at-risk families to identify causes of child abuse and effective solutions, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, race-based issues and poverty in these high rates.

    2. an immediate increase of support and resourcing to grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families attempting to stop abuse in the first place – for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes

    3. an increased investment in parenting organisations such as Parents Inc and other community based positive parenting programmes.

    4. a media-based anti-child abuse campaign, in the same way road afety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse

    5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially increased to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children.

    Desparate times call for desparate actions,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “The Children’s Commissioner denies the need for an Inquiry yet the best she can offer is a ban on smacks and wasting time and resources ‘auditing’ good families. Meanwhile the horrendous abuse continues.”

    “And the politicians, by spending so much time and energy on section 59 have also shown that they are unwilling and unable to deal with real causes of child abuse. Their cross-party committee to tackle child abuse after the Kahui case self-destructed.”

    “Child abuse is greater than any political agenda, will require a huge amount of honesty, and must be owned and solved by New Zealanders.”

    “Our silence and inaction has been killing us. No more.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42


    27 July 2007 – For The Sake Of Our Children – Rankin calls for an ‘Honest Debate On Child Abuse

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0707/S00342.htm

    Rankin calls for an ‘Honest Debate On Child Abuse
    Friday, 27 July 2007, 2:24 pm
    Press Release: For The Sake Of Our Children
    ‘Children’s Advocate’ Christine Rankin calls for an ‘Honest and Courageous Debate on Child Abuse’

    Media Release
    27 July 2007

    Christine Rankin, CEO For the Sake of our Children Trust and Family First NZ agree that there should be an independent Inquiry into child abuse in New Zealand.

    “I’m absolutely sick of it,” says Christine Rankin, CEO of For the Sake of our Children. “When you’re in the kind of arena we’re in, you wait week by week for this to happen again. You can almost count on it now.”

    “It seems we can’t take it seriously. We get very upset by high-profile cases like this Rotorua case and the Kahui’s, but there’s a barrier that means we can’t talk about the real issues – that barrier is political correctness.”

    “The real issues are being masked. Maori feature hugely in the child abuse statistics, yet this fact is something that we’re not allowed to talk about and when I’ve raised this issue before, I’ve been accused of being racist.”

    “I’m not racist. I’m simply stating the facts. Are we honest enough to tell the truth?”

    “Approximately 60% of child abuse is in Maori families yet they represent only 15% of the population.”

    Rankin questions why Maori leaders aren’t speaking up more strongly on this issue.

    “They are leaving a legacy to their people and to this country – they deny that it is a real issue, talk around it, and any Maori leader who speaks up on this seems to quickly withdraw from their strong and courageous stance. Why won’t they fight this issue?”

    “There are also no repercussions for child abuse. The recent sentencing of an Otara couple to four years each for beating a child to death is disgraceful. There is no responsibility and no consequences.”

    The OECD and CYF reports consistently identify drug and alcohol abuse, and family breakdown as key contributors to child abuse. There are no consequences for these irresponsible thugs who cause untold suffering to our children.

    “The anti-smacking bill was never going to make a difference. These abusers don’t even know about section 59 and they don’t care anyway. Child abuse had no relevance to the smacking law.”

    Christine Rankin is asking for an independent Inquiry on child abuse – separate from political agendas and correctness – and comprising community leaders who are willing to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.

    ends


    27 JULY 2007 – Family First – Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

    27 JULY 2007

    Calls for Independent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

    Family First NZ is joining with For the Sake of our Children Trust in calling for an official Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ.

    The call comes after the horrific case of a Rotorua child fighting for her life as a result of abuse by her step-father and other household members.

    “The ban on smacking was simply an admission by politicians that they could not and would not tackle the real causes of child abuse as identified by recent CYFS and UNICEF reports,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First.

    “The 80% plus of NZ’ers who opposed Bradford’s bill are not people who were demanding the right to “thrash and beat” children as suggested by Helen Clark. They were simply kiwis who were exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed child welfare groups were more interested in targeting good parents and light smacking than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty, and weak family ties.”

    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”

    “An Otara couple who could be out of prison in only four years for the recent horrific abuse of their three year old shows that we simply aren’t placing enough emphasis and resources on sending a clear message to child abusers that their actions are unacceptable. These type of people probably think section 59 is the main road into Wellington.”

    Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:

    June 2007

    * Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries

    * 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative

    * 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.

    * Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.

    July 2007

    * Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months

    * Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P

    * 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse by stepfather and extended family

    “This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Locations of visitors to this page

  • 2 – 26 July 2007

    Dear Editor,

    I the undersigned, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law in Gothenburg, Sweden and president of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org) am hereby sending you a manuscript “The Empresses’ new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!”

    Very truly yours
    Ruby Harrold-Claesson
    Attorney at law
    President or the NKMR/NCHR
    http://www.nkmr.org

    The Empresses’ new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!

    One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member’s Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform – and to warn – the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.

    When I left New Zealand after my two-week stay, I was hopeful that the bill would not pass because over 80 % of the population was not in favour of it. I had also thought that New Zealand was a democratic country that respected the will of the people. My warnings were backed by my presentation of 30 of the court cases that I have collected for my coming PhD thesis on the Swedish anti-smacking law. These show how parents were prosecuted and sentenced to fines or prison and their children were taken into forcible public care and separated from them and placed in foster homes. But it all fell on deaf parliamentarian ears. My hopes were finally crumbled in May when the compromise was reached and the bill became law because the MPs were forced to vote against their consciences. Fortunately, a few MPs with high integrity refused to vote for the law: one even resigned from his Party because of it.

    New Zealand has made a historical mistake by following Sweden’s example to ban smacking. New Zealand’s law has gone even farther than Sweden’s in that it prescribes criminal penalties for smacking parents and the Children’s Commissioner cheered – just like the crowds did at the Emperor’s new clothes. The Swedish law doesn’t prescribe criminal penalties, but Parliament was informed that the new law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Penal Law. And so it has been.

    Section 59 was good legislation and as such it should not have been tampered with in any way. Sue Bradford sent three strong messages:

    1 – She knows best – better than the legally educated judges on whose discretion it lies to decide what is “reasonable force”;
    2 – She does not trust the judgement of the courts;
    3 – She thinks previous rulings were wrong.

    Remember, the anti-smacking law was not delivered to mankind on slabs of stone as one of the Ten Commandments. It was imposed by the Swedish social engineers. So, the fact that Sweden repealed its equivalent to Section 59 does not justify New Zealand repealing its own. In a TV-debate on July 19, 2006, Sue Bradford said that it was irrelevant to discuss Sweden. However, it is quite obvious that no one can discuss imposing a smacking-ban on a country without taking Sweden – the pioneer – into account. Also, the British Parliament engaged in similar legislative procedure in 2004. It resulted in the Lester amendment, which is called the “fudge”. The Lester amendment is deemed as a progression towards a total smacking ban. However, England is facing a re-think. In an article in The People, July 8, 2007, Tory children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “The present law is unworkable nonsense – it just criminalises parents. We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children.”

    While the Swedish parliament may have been in good faith in repealing their equivalent to Section 59 and consequently passing the anti-smacking law despite the warnings of important judicial organs, the NZ parliament cannot be deemed to have acted in good faith. Both Dr Bob Larzelere and I informed them of the disastrous consequences that the Swedish anti-smacking law has had for children, families and the society as a whole.

    The NZ anti-smacking lobby claims that repealing Section 59 will stop child abuse. They also claim that Swedish children are safer and that only one child every four years dies from abuse in Sweden. These claims have been proven mendacious so, imposing a smacking ban with reference to Sweden’s “low mortality rates” shows that they have failed to note that homicide rates indicate only the extreme cases of child abuse. How often does one hear of ‘death by a smack’? Homicide rates are not the same as rates of supposed harm by smacking. And, the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act will not change the situation for children who are subject to abuse.

    Not even the blanket prohibition against smacking that was passed in 1979 has prevented child abuse in Sweden. In fact, assistant professor Hans Temrin at the University of Stockholm has shown in two separate press releases, the latter of which was published in May 2006, that 258 children in Sweden died at the hands of their parents or guardians between 1965 – 1999. Incidentally, those figures do not include children who have died while in state care, for e.g. Daniel Sigström (1992) or Felicia Pettersson (2005). A little reminder: in Sweden, in January – February 2006 three children under the age of ten died at the hands of their parents and in May a 12 yr-old girl was murdered by her step-father.

    You may wonder what the reason is for my involvement in the New Zealand smacking debate. Well, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking so it is cited as the model to follow. In my capacity as a lawyer in Sweden, researcher on the Swedish anti-smacking law (PhD) and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries , I have close-up experiences of the that law. I find that Sweden is the model to avoid – at all costs.

    Parenting vs child abuse
    Here’s why:
    1 – society accepts that parenting, by definition, embraces a corrective role. Sweden, that prides itself in being the first country in the world to abolish physical punishment – smacking – of children, removed the plea of “reasonable force” in 1957. Sweden has thereafter taken further steps to “protect children” from “abuse” and in 1979 the “Anti-smacking law”, which was promulgated in the Parent and guardianship Code, came into force. Smacking was equated to “child abuse”. Several state organs that gave opinions warned against the law. They invoked the indoctrination to violence that children meet in films and in the media and also the administrative violence that children and their parents would be subjected to because of the totalitarian nature of the law.

    Despite the fact that Parliament had been informed that the law would be sanctioned by the provisions of the Criminal Code, the information given in the English summary promised that no parents would be prosecuted because of the law. This was reiterated in similar words to the international audience in Paris when the law was presented to the world stating that the law does “not represent an extension of the punishable area”. However, the first prosecution for minor incidents occurred already in 1978 – prior to the passing of the law. Swedish statistics published in February 2007 show that there has been a 14% increase in child abuse despite the smacking ban, with 11 000 reports of “child abuse” per year in Sweden. There are claims that “only” ten percent are prosecuted. Yet, the Swedish and New Zealand lobbies and their experts and statisticians claim that the Swedish smacking ban is extremely successful, and that polls show that only a minor percent of Swedish parents smack their children.

    With 11 000 reports of “child abuse” per year and “only” ten percent being prosecuted there seemed to be a need for more stringent laws to guarantee the success of the Swedish smacking ban. So, in 1998 – 2000 the law “gross disturbance of the peace” – which initially was drafted to protect battered women – came to include child smacking. Since then parents are being prosecuted for “gross disturbance of the peace” and their children are taken into compulsory care. The difference between being prosecuted for “child abuse” and “gross disturbance of the peace” is that in the former one had to present times and dates, but in the latter the charges do not have to be substantiated.

    Smacking = child abuse?
    2 – In my capacity as legal practitioner in Sweden , researcher and president of the “Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) for the Protection of Family Rights in the Nordic countries”, I have seen the effects of the anti-smacking law on children and their families. Because of my first-hand knowledge of the Swedish system, I was approached by two persons from separate parts of NZ who had found the NCHR’s web site and I have now been engaged in the Section 59 debate for the past two years. I made both a written and an oral submission to the Section 59 Select Committee. My oral submission was accompanied by 32 case summaries in English and 30 photocopies of verdicts, summary judgements and newspaper or other articles in Swedish.

    Discipline in Sweden has become a word that is despised and equated with child abuse. It is a very extremist view and one that should be examined carefully. In his book “Basic theory of Psychoanalysis” Robert Waelder wrote the following:
    “… a psychoanalytic approach to upbringing does not mean that children should get what they desire when they desire something; instead it demands an attempt to find a suitable balance between satisfaction and disappointment in every situation … we have to find the optimal combination of two equally important but partly opposite ingredients for a healthy development, namely, love and discipline; to love without spoiling and to discipline without injuring.”

    In his paper “Combining Love and Limits in Authoritative Parenting: A Conditional Sequence Model of Disciplinary Responses” published in 2001, Dr. Bob Larzelere finds that several research programs have shown that optimal parenting combines love and limits – not pitting both ingredients against each other.

    UN and Unicef Directives
    In May 2006, former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who is married to a Swedish woman, thus his interest to promote the Swedish agenda, issued directives that every country in the world should impose anti-smacking laws. Kofi Annan, also known for his non-intervention in the Rwandan massacre, has completely ignored the gross injustices being perpetrated because of the Swedish anti-smacking law; that thousands of families have been – and are being – destroyed by unnecessary state interventions and that parents are afraid to correct their children. To implement his directives, Kofi Annan appointed the Portuguese professor, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, to lobby all governments in the world “to offer children the same protection under the law that adults have”. This is a most interesting phrase, because UNCROC in its preamble stipulates for the protection of children as follows: “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Sweden fails grossly to meet up to that requirement for ca 30 000 unborn children per year. The New Zealand figures are 18 000.

    The ideological “child protection” advocates claim that they are acting in the child’s best interest when they call for a total ban on smacking and heavy penalties for smacking parents. However, they fail to realise that they are the very ones who are exposing children to severe abuse. Normally, the vast majority of parents talk to their children and try to make them comply. A smack is usually administered when words and admonition have failed to have the desired effect. So, if a child is smacked for something that he/she did or failed to do, subjecting the parents to police investigations and subsequent social investigations and separating the child from its parents will be double punishment for the child. This will not only expose the child to severe trauma but also damage the child’s relations to its parents – maybe permanently. So, those Kiwis (MPs) must be crazy!

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, President of the NCHR/NKMR.

    1 Larzelere’s parting comments http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00223.htm
    2 Was the Lester amendment really necessary? By Kay Ma. Dissertation 2005.

    3 Hans Temrin “Styvföräldrar misshandlar oftare barn till döds”, DN May 12, 2006
    4 Kathryn Rich claimed that I am “a fruit loop”. See Prof Jacob Sundberg’s letter to Kathryn Rich http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html and his letter to Deborah Coddington, http://www.nkmr.org/english/coddington_letter.htm

    5 14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm
    6 “Anti-smack campaign fails to pack a punch” quotation, Christian Diesen. Note in the article that Diesen wants more parents to be prosecuted.
    7 I am not a member of the Swedish Bar Association, a fact that Sue Bradford and her “child protection” lobby, unknowledgeable of the Swedish system, tried to make a big affair of in their attempts to discredit me because of my criticism of the Swedish anti-smacking law. Cf Note 4 supra.

    8 Waelder, R IUP, New York, 1964
    9 http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
    10 European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod – or go to court http://www.corpun.com/eud00002.htm


    21 July 07 – NZCPR Weekly – Breaking Through

    http://www.nzcpr.com/
    NZCPR Weekly

    21 July 07
    NZCPR Weekly – Topic: Welfare
    Breaking Through
    Muriel Newman

    Breaking Through

    Early last year a little boy was brutally beaten to death by his mother and her partner:

    “The child’s blood was also found throughout the house. In two rooms – the living area and his bedroom – the blood had splattered so high it hit the ceiling”.

    Graphic photographs taken during his post-mortem showed three year old Ngatikaura Ngati’s body had suffered repeated beatings. His left arm was so badly damaged that it had swollen to twice its normal size. When pathologists cut it open they found all the tissue had already died from the beatings he had suffered.

    The investigating Police Officer Richard Middleton said, “This is as bad as anything I have seen on a child or any human”.

    Ngati’s mother had given him to childless relatives when he was a month old. They raised him as their own. But shortly after his third birthday, his mother wanted him back: “she was claiming a benefit for more children than were living with her and she was afraid of being caught out”. Three months later, the little boy was dead. (See From Happiness to Hell, Herald>>>) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10439204

    This shocking case highlights the malevolent nature of child abuse in New Zealand – a vicious crime committed by a mother and her partner who were so hungry for benefit money that they placed their dependency on government welfare above the safety and happiness of their child.

    For that reason, the second defendant in this case – and in most other child abuse cases in New Zealand – should be the State. The worst child abusers in this country are the government which has knowingly cemented in place social policies that create the environment for child abuse to flourish. Their social welfare policies lead to the disintegration of marriage, family and community as benefit recipients become hooked, realising that they are significantly better off if they stay single and on welfare.

    Through unconditional state handouts to vulnerable women with children, whole communities have been created where the two-parent family has vanished, where work is rare or non-existent, and where social degradation – squalor, alcoholism, drugs, violence, crime – is commonplace.

    Just last week, the Herald on Sunday reported on child abuse cases at Auckland’s Starship Hospital, stating that last year’s child abuse admissions were the worst on record. It also claimed that the figures for head injuries for Maori children are the highest in the world. (See Doctor Decries Staggering Level of Child Abuse>>>)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10451548&pnum=0

    Yet the Government’s response to this national crisis is a shameful silence.

    In contrast, the Howard Government in Australia has invoked a state of emergency to deal with their child abuse crisis – which is at a level similar to ours. They have introduced controls on dysfunctional families that include compulsory health checks on all at-risk children, linking benefit payments to school attendance, and quarantining 50 per cent of welfare payments to ensure that funds are used for children’s welfare, not booze, drugs or gambling.

    The opposition Labour Party, recognising the seriousness of the problem, has pledged to put in place even tougher measures if they become the government, withholding all welfare payments from families that do not do the right thing by their children.

    New Zealand remains the only country in the world that has wide open access to the sole parent benefit. Here, girl can get pregnant as teenager and literally have a benefit income for life. She can remain on the Domestic Purposes Benefit just so long as she doesn’t work, doesn’t marry, and from time to time has another baby to keep her eligibility current.

    Yet life on a benefit is the very worst incentive that any government could possibly dangle in front of vulnerable young girls as it creates a perilous home environment for their children. Maori girls in particular are susceptible to the government’s anti-marriage welfare ‘bait’ with figures from the Ministry of Social Development showing that Maori teenage parents are on a benefit at a rate of 85 per 1,000, more than eight times higher the non-Maori rate of 10 per 1,000.

    Just last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report showing that the number of children living in financial hardship in New Zealand has – incredibly – almost doubled in two decades from 12% in 1982 to 23% in 2004, with sole parent households with children being by far the worst off. (see MSD Hardship Report>>>) http://www.cyf.govt.nz/documents/Child_death_from_maltreatment.pdf

    That is why the government’s refusal to fundamentally reform welfare, in order to move sole parents off benefits into supported work and a decent life, borders on being criminally negligent.

    In contrast to a situation here, politicians in the US took action over a decade ago: “The designers of welfare reform were concerned that prolonged welfare dependence had a negative effect on the development of children. Their goal was to disrupt intergenerational dependence by moving families with children off the welfare rolls through increased work and marriage… Ten years after welfare reform became the law those who have enjoyed the greatest benefits are the most disadvantaged single parents with the most significant barriers to employment. In particular, young, never-married mothers with low levels of education and young children”. (see The Impact of Welfare Reform by the Heritage Foundation>>>)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

    Figures from Statistics NZ confirm the dramatic move in New Zealand away from childbearing within marriage. Historically, only around five percent of babies were born outside of marriage. But largely as a result of the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in the seventies, the trend changed and by 1990 the rate had increased to 35 percent. As of last year, 47 percent of all babies born in New Zealand were born outside of marriage, which means that almost a half of all newborns in this country are being born into family structures that put them at an increased risk of child abuse.

    That is not to say that all children born into de-facto relationships will be harmed; of course they won’t. Nor that all sole parents do a bad job; on the contrary many do an exceptional job and raise great kids. But just as there are no guarantees that children raised in two-parent married families will be happy and safe, on the balance of probability married families represent the safest of all environments in which to raise children, with un-married families the most dangerous.

    Encouraging marriage is the approach that has now been taken by legislators in the United States in order to improve the outlook for children. It is also the conclusion that has been reached in “Breakthrough Britain: Ending the Costs of Social Breakdown”, a new report produced by the British Conservative Party’s Social Justice Commission. This report, which builds on last year’s “Breakdown Britain”, finds that the breakdown of the two-parent family and the decline of marriage is at the heart of the collapse of values in British society. It proposes a number of strategies to strengthen families and encourage marriage through adjustments to the tax and benefit systems. (see Breakthrough Britain>>>)http://87.106.6.204/default.asp?pageRef=182

    The report also discusses the significant contribution made by the voluntary sector, which works at the coalface of social dysfunction, and it recommends that it be liberated from the domination of state control.

    According to this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Peter Allen, who founded and headed the Prince of Wales Trust, the situation here in New Zealand is dire:

    “During my eleven years of involvement with some of the country’s most complex young people I saw many valuable youth initiatives destroyed by the government’s youth policies and bureaucratic pressure. Unfortunately their loss is becoming increasingly apparent as we see more youth crime, assaults on elderly people, property damage, theft, drunken behaviour, increased drug abuse and more truancy from school than ever before”.

    He goes on to warn, “This Government’s destructive social policies have created divisions between cultures, within families, and across communities, and until there is a full realisation that the problems are politically motivated – and the people of this country demand appropriate action – the situation will continue to deteriorate”. (To read Peter’s article “The Bureaucratic Destruction of Private Sector Youth Support Services” click the sidebar link>>>) http://www.nzcpr.com/guest59.htm

    Peter is right. Many of the complex social problems that we face in New Zealand – like the dreadful child abuse crisis – are being caused by politically motivated government policy. But until the public demands action, there will be no breaking though and as sure as night follows day, more and more innocent children like little Ngatikura Ngati will die.

    Poll: The poll this week asks whether you would favour the introduction of policies to encourage marriage in New Zealand.
    To vote click here>>> http://www.nzcpr.com/polls.htm

    [Comments received during the week on the column and the poll will be posted here>>>]
    http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=233

    Last week’s poll asked: Should the welfare reform proposed by the Howard Government in Australia should be adopted in New Zealand?
    Result: 96% said Yes and 4% said No.
    You can read the hundreds of comments that were submitted by clicking here>>>. http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=231

    Housekeeping: Please feel free to forward this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested. A printer-friendly version is on the http://www.nzcpr.com website.

    Don’t forget that we are always keen to consider publication of opinion pieces for the website Soapbox Series http://www.nzcpr.com/soapbox.htm – why not visit the page and send in your submission.

    To contact Muriel about this week’s column please click here>>>. muriel@nzcpd.com

    NZCPR Weekly is a free weekly newsletter by Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a web-based forum at http://www.nzcpr.com for the lively and dynamic exchange of political ideas. You can reach Muriel by phone on 09-434-3836, 021-800-111 or by post at PO Box 984 Whangarei.


    8 July 2007 – people.co.uk – EXCLUSIVE: SMACKING PARENTS WON’T FACE PRISON

    http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=smacking-parents-won-t-face-prison–&method=full&objectid=19423641&siteid=93463-name_page.html

    EXCLUSIVE: SMACKING PARENTS WON’T FACE PRISON
    EXCLUSIVE Human rights ‘farce’ faces axe
    By Nigel Nelson
    PARENTS who smack their children are likely to be spared the threat of jail under a Government rethink.

    Mums and dads currently face up to five years in prison if they bruise or graze kids.

    But outraged parents say the penalties – brought in two years ago under European human rights laws – are too tough.

    They want the courts to distinguish between disciplining naughty kids and child abuse. Now the Government is to ask parents’ views over the summer after other surveys showed that two-thirds are in favour of disciplinary smacking. Tory children’s minister Tim Loughton said: “The present law is unworkable nonsense – it just criminalises parents.

    “We need to clearly define the line between chastisement by parents as they see fit and violence towards children.” The current law allows “reasonable chastisement” but if a mark is made that could be treated as actual bodily harm.

    Critics say that fails to recognise the difference between responsible parents and those who beat their kids black and blue.

    The results of the Government survey will be announced by Schools Minister Andrew Adonis in the autumn when a law change will be considered.

    Child protection organisations who want an outright ban on smacking will also be consulted…..


    2 July 2007 – hbtoday – EDITORIAL – All feeling smack in checkout

    http://www.hbtoday.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3740159&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

    EDITORIAL – All feeling smack in checkout

    02.07.2007
    LOUIS PIERARD
    With two suspicious deaths of infants at the weekend the controversy over whether cabinet minister David Cunliffe smacked his child in a supermarket seems obscenely petty.

    But therein lies the point.

    Mr Cunliffe – who denies he “smacked” his child – and his family are distressed by the attention received from “Families First”, which has lobbied against the anti-smacking legislation.

    And who could blame him?

    His parenting methods – and, no doubt, those of all who have supported the anti-smacking legislation – have become hostage to politics. Such scrutiny, though unkind, is not surprising.

    The law’s opponents would relish the chance to test the new law on one of its high-profile advocates. However, all parents are in the same uncomfortable position as Mr Cunliffe, who was in fact congratulated by Families First, which said he “did what any half-decent parent would have done in the circumstances”.
    While the Government’s accommodation reached with National for its support of the bill exempted “inconsequential” events from prosecution, that level has yet to be determined.

    And despite repeated assurances that good parents won’t be hauled before the courts, how can anyone know?

    Is a small, corrective smack in a supermarket a forgivable “technical breach” or might it be eligible for prosecution if drawing a complaint or witnessed more than once?

    How much discretion might police be allowed if the precautionary principle gives authority to finger-pointers and mischief makers (who appear to be the beneficiaries of the new law)?

    The triviality of the Cunliffe affair seen beside the baby deaths – the importance of which it has all but eclipsed – is instructive because it underlines the worthlessness of sending messages with a prescriptive, intrusive law.

    Most New Zealanders believe that not only the new law fails to honour its promise to protect the young but it will also hit the wrong targets.

    Meanwhile the real problem will remain unaddressed.

    Sue Bradford’s bill won endorsement from many disgusted at the level of child abuse in New Zealand and who rightly believed something needed to be done. However, instead of focusing on baby bashers and killers (collectivist ideology absolves individual wrongdoers by making everyone else accountable) Parliament found blanket disapproval was far more convenient and put all parents on notice that they had better be on their best behaviour.

    So disconnected have our politicians become from their constituents that they just cannot understand why they have deeply offended so many – even when one of their own is used to make the point.


    2 July 2007 – newstalkzb – MP in smacking controversy

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=120143

    MP in smacking controversy
    2/07/2007 7:36:02

    Opponents of the new anti-smacking law believe the actions of a Labour MP prove its stupidity.

    There are claims Cabinet Minister David Cunliffe was spotted smacking his child at LynnMall shopping centre in Auckland, despite the fact the MP voted in favour of legislation repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    Independent MP Gordon Copeland was one of eight MPs to oppose the bill. He says Mr Cunliffe’s case highlights the pitfalls of the new law, which outlaws smacking unless it is to save a child from harm. Police have discretion to decide whether to prosecute.

  • 8 – 30 June 2007

    30 June 2007 – Family First – Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack
    MEDIA RELEASE
    30 June 2007

    Cabinet Minister Corrects Child With a Smack

    Labour MP David Cunliffe has been observed giving one of his children a smack for naughty behaviour at a shopping mall.

    Family First was contacted and told of the actions which occurred at the Lynmall Shopping Centre this afternoon (Saturday 30 June). The child was being corrected for hitting another child.

    “We support David Cunliffe for the action he took to correct naughty behaviour,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The smack on the hand was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.”

    “It appears that Mr Cunliffe was acting as any good parent would in the same circumstances.”

    “However, under the anti-smacking law passed by Mr Cunliffe and his colleagues, his action of using force to correct a child is now illegal and a complaint made by a member of the public, or the child, to the police would have to be investigated.“

    “The Police would record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Co-ordinator, and if Mr Cunliffe was observed taking the same action again, the police would consider prosecuting him and forwarding the file to CYF’s for possible investigation and intervention.”

    “That’s how farcical this law is,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Groups like Barnados and Plunket, and the Children’s Commissioner would find Mr Cunliffe’s actions totally unacceptable.”

    But Family First congratulates him for being a responsible and loving parent.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42


    26 June 2007 – The Timaru Herald – Smacking law not yet used in Timaru

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/timaruherald/4107835a6571.html

    Smacking law not yet used in Timaru
    By RHONDA MARKBY – The Timaru Herald | Tuesday, 26 June 2007

    The new law banning the smacking of children might be three days old, but Timaru police are yet to use it.

    Senior Sergeant Mark Offen was not surprised that there had been no complaints, adding allegations of assault on children by either adults or children themselves, were not common.

    In the less serious cases officers could use their discretion as to whether a charge was laid. Mr Offen said there still had to be sufficient evidence for police to lay a charge and take the matter to court.


    22 June 2007 – Maxim Institute – real issues – A LEAP IN THE DARK

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00273.htm

    Maxim Institute – real issues – No. 258
    Friday, 22 June 2007, 10:50 am
    Column: Maxim Institute
    21 June 2007
    http://www.maxim.org.nz

    A LEAP IN THE DARK

    This week the Police released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 detailing how they intend to decide whether parents will or will not be prosecuted when they use physical discipline. The changes to the law around disciplining children will come into effect on 22 June 2007, making it technically illegal to use mild physical force for the purposes of correction. However, if the offence is ‘inconsequential’ the police have discretion whether to prosecute.

    The guidelines suggest that even though infrequent smacking may be considered inconsequential, prosecution may still occur after repetitive incidents. Similarly, even ‘inconsequential’ reports of force must be passed on to the Police family violence co-ordinator under the guidelines. The police have also been careful to point out that the true impact of this law will not be seen until case law develops. This means that until someone is prosecuted under the new section 59, the way the guidelines will be applied cannot be predicated. The changes to section 59 are, as many opponents warned, a leap in the dark.

    The release of these guidelines coincides with the findings of a national poll on people’s attitudes towards the new law, conducted by Curia research, a market research firm. The results show that 78 percent of parents surveyed will still smack their children to correct their behaviour if they believe it is reasonable to do so. Only 16 percent said that they would not. This suggests that people are going to be willing to break the law and whether they will be punished for doing so will depend on how the police view their actions.

    This raises an interesting question; will the vast majority of New Zealanders actually ignore this new legislation long-term or will the law eventually change New Zealanders’ perspective on parental discipline? Sweden is an interesting test case because physical punishment against children was banned in 1979, yet parents continued to physically discipline their children. While 34 percent of those born before 1979 indicated they had received physical punishment from their parents, this only dropped to 32 percent for those born during or after 1979. The results of the poll by Curia research tentatively suggest that a similar pattern may emerge in New Zealand, which is the inevitable result of a law that relies on police guidelines and court precedents.


    22 June 2007 – dailypost – Smacking doesn’t make me a bad mum – Rotorua parent

    http://www.dailypost.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3739024&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

    Smacking doesn’t make me a bad mum – Rotorua parent

    22.06.2007
    By KRISTIN MACFARLANE

    SINGLE mum Augusta Scott has her hands full with two young boys, Elijah, 10 and Chance, 8.

    Most of the time they’re good kids.

    But sometimes if they’re naughty, she’ll give them a light smack.

    Ms Scott says that doesn’t make her a bad mother.

    However, she’s worried that from today parents like her could come under unfair scrutiny.

    Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill – the anti-smacking bill – comes into effect today after being passed into law last month.

    Ms Scott said as a single mum it could be difficult controlling two young boys who sometimes fought.

    In these circumstances, a light smack was necessary, she said.

    “You can’t say naughty boy and send them to time out because it doesn’t work,” she said.

    “If it’s controlled it can provide the effective reinforcement when you’re trying to teach a child something.

    “It’s all the parents [who] discipline with control [who] are going to be under the spotlight.”

    Ms Scott has a teenage daughter who was smacked when she misbehaved.

    It had not had a negative affect on her, Ms Scott said.

    Ms Scott said the bill also had the potential for children to make false complaints because it has been such a high-profile issue.

    “Guaranteed, it will happen.”

    John Wilson of the Rotorua police child abuse section agreed.

    “There’s always been the potential for false complaints,” Mr Wilson said. However, he did think the bill was good in the sense that it changed the Crimes Act and removed the defence of “reasonable force” against assault on a child.

    “It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said.

    He didn’t think responsible parents needed to worry about getting into trouble.

    “The whole thing has to be viewed with a good amount of common sense,” he said.


    21 June 2007 – tvnz – Anti-smacking guide for police

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1190535

    Anti-smacking guide for police
    Jun 21, 2007

    With the new anti-smacking law coming into effect on Friday, police have released guidelines on how staff should handle it.

    The guide outlines situations where it is okay to smack. But parents opposed to the bill say the guidelines confirm it is their worst nightmare.

    The police guidelines acknowledge children are unpredictable. A smack is okay to stop a child running onto a road, experimenting with electrical outlets or behaving in a criminal or offensive way that may harm themselves or others.

    Police can also look the other way if the smack is deemed inconsequential or so light it doesn’t matter.

    But if it comes to police attention, it will be recorded.

    “It’s a record of police action and potentially if there is a sequence of incidents relating to a particular family or person then police clearly would be failing in their duty not to look at the matter appropriately,” says Pope.

    In the guide, police state that where force is used against a child, they must consider the amount of force used before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

    If an assault is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, the event will be recorded and the file forwarded to a family violence co-ordinator.

    But the guide states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

    Simon Barnett says he is a good father to his four children and smacking is all part of that.

    “Then you say ‘look if you do that again daddy’s going to give you a smack on the count of three. One, two’ and if they do it again I will smack her wee hand,” Barnett says.

    He believes police guidelines on the new anti-smacking law confirm his worst fears that parents like him will be criminalised.

    “Even if it’s inconsequential smacking, your name goes on a police computer forever as a violent offender. That is unconscionable,” he says.

    Police say that is just business as usual.

    Police use a number of sources for registering complaints, offences or incidents they attend as part of our overall statistical gathering,” says Rob Pope, police deputy commissioner.

    Like any new law, this one will have to be tested through the courts to see what the judiciary decides is inconsequential smacking or not. The police statement says that until cases go through the courts it is not clear how the law will be applied.

    “Well I’m sorry, I don’t want to have to be the test case – some poor child getting dragged through the court system and some family suffering that fate,” says Barnett.

    Police will review the guidelines in three months.

    Law “confusing”

    Bob McCoskrie from lobby group Family First says the guidelines show the law is confusing.

    “If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says McCoskrie.

    But bill author Sue Bradford says the guidelines really support the idea behind the bill. She says it is clear that using weapons, or hitting kids around their head is inappropriate and also gives good rules around what is.

    CYF won’t change approach

    And it will be business as usual for Child Youth and Family when the anti-smacking legislation comes into effect on Friday.

    CYF says it will look at each notification involving physical discipline in the same way as any other allegation of assault.

    Spokeswoman Lee Harris Royal says a smack on the back of the hand to signal displeasure will not reach an intervention stage.

    In repeated events where police warnings have been unsuccessful involving the same family, only then will CYFS intervene.

    But whether the use of physical force against a child constitutes an offence, will still be a police decision.


    21 June 2007 – police – Smacking guidelines too restrictive

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html

    Smacking guidelines too restrictive – police
    NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007

    New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.

    The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.

    A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.

    But association president Greg O’Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.

    “The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given,” he told the New Zealand Herald.

    There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.

    There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.

    Mr O’Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. “And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad.”

    A group opposing the smacking bill – Family First – yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.

    Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.

    “This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” Mr McCoskrie said.

    The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.

    National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.


    20 June 2007- Waikato Times – Father hits out at ‘vague’ new smacking guidelines

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/4102035a6579.html
    Father hits out at ‘vague’ new smacking guidelines
    By NATALIE AKOORIE and THE DOMINION POST – Waikato Times | Wednesday, 20 June 2007

    A Hamilton father of five who plans to continue smacking his children in spite of a controversial law banning physical punishment says the police prosecution guidelines are too vague.

    Neil Pascoe, whose children range in age from two to 23, said it was “totally ridiculous” that parents who regularly smacked their children despite warnings faced prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under the law, which comes into effect on Friday.

    “How can they prove it?” he said. “They’re not there at the time – they didn’t see what went on . . . unless there is bruising – but if there is, or scarring, that then becomes abuse.”

    Under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday, even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence co-ordinators.

    The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of a law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children.

    It was passed after a last-minute deal between Labour and National brought a clause making it clear that police were not expected to prosecute “inconsequential” smacking.

    Though that is recognised in the guidelines, “inconsequential” is not defined, with officers told it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine in test cases.

    The advice goes on to say that smacking not considered inconsequential by investigating officers may be prosecuted if it is “repetitive and frequent” and previous warnings have been ignored. Such incidents would constitute assault, and must be referred to child abuse investigators and CYF.

    Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents.

    Green MP Sue Bradford, who introduced the bill, said the guidelines gave police “some context”.


    20 June 2007 – New Zealand National Party – National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0706/S00380.htm

    National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

    Wednesday, 20 June 2007, 10:05 am
    Press Release: New Zealand National Party
    John Key MP
    National Party Leader
    20 June 2007

    National will fix smacking law if it’s broken

    National Party Leader John Key says a National-led Government will change the smacking law if the spirit of the compromise thrashed out with Labour is broken.

    “We’re watching the developments. National has maintained right the way through the process that we do not wish to see responsible parents criminalised. If that starts happening, a National Government would fix the law.

    “The critical test of this legislation was always going to be the way it was administered.

    “But I am confident the police will administer the law with the appropriate judgment and discretion required. If, for whatever reason, that proves not to be the case, we’ll change it.

    “The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do not want to see good parents criminalised for an ‘inconsequential’ smack. That’s what National signed up to, and that’s still the case.”

    ENDS


    20 June 2007 – Family First – Regular smackers may face charges

    Regular smackers may face charges

    The Dominion Post 20 June 2007

    Parents who regularly smack their children despite warnings face prosecution and referral to Child, Youth and Family under police guidelines on the controversial law banning physical punishment. Even parents found to have used “minor, trivial or inconsequential” force and not charged will have their details recorded by police family violence coordinators, under the guidelines sent to officers yesterday. The advice, from Police Commissioner Howard Broad, is a crucial element in the implementation of the law that abolishes the defence of reasonable force for parents who smack their children. The law comes into force on Friday.

    Family First director Bob McCoskrie, who led a massive campaign against the law change, said the guidelines confirmed many of the fears raised by opponents. “Who’s going to be the lucky test case parents who have to go through the hell of a prosecution? If the police are saying ‘we’re not sure’, how in the heck are parents going to be certain that they’re parenting within the law?”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4100946a10.html

    Police issue smacking law guide and question definitions
    NZ Herald
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446785

    READ The Police Practive Guide for New Section 59
    http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html

    Family First’s Response…

    Police Practice Guide for Smacking Law Confirms Worst Fears for Parents
    Family First MEDIA RELEASE
    19 JUNE 2007

    The Police have confirmed that they will prosecute parents who lightly smack their children, even if the smacking is inconsequential.

    In the Police Practice Guide released by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope today, it states that “while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent.”

    “This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” says Mr McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This flies in the face of assurances given by Helen Clark and John Key.”

    The Police Practice guide also acknowledges the confusing nature of the new law in its introduction by stating that “until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law.”

    “If the Police are having difficulty determining the law and its effect, how is a parent trying to do a good job and parent effectively and within the law supposed to have confidence in what they are doing,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “The Practice Guide also confirms that the Police will be keeping records of all complaints – even those of a minor, trivial or inconsequential nature.”

    “It is interesting to note that the Police, in the absence of clear definitions in the law of who is a “child” and what constitutes “reasonable force” will be forced to make subjective decisions based on the age and maturity of the child and the circumstances that led to the use of force. In other words, and ironically, we’re back to the original section 59.”

    “The politicians have delivered a ‘feel-good’ law change to the Police with no substance or certainty for parents, and some poor family is going to be the ‘test case’ of a law which, according to a recent poll, 78% of NZ’ers will ignore and 77% say it will have no effect on child abuse.”


    17 June 2007 – Family First – 78% Will Break New Smacking Law Coming Into Force This Week

    MEDIA RELEASE
    17 JUNE 2007

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0706/S00214.htm

    Smacking Law Rejected by Majority of NZ’ers – 78% Will Ignore the Law

    Only 29% of NZ’ers support the Sue Bradford ‘anti-smacking’ bill due to become enforceable in law this week, and 78% plan to ignore the law and continue to smack as a form of correction, despite the possibility they might be prosecuted.

    These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by market research company Curia Market Research. The poll surveyed almost 1,000 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

    29% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause, while 62% strongly or somewhat disagreed with the law. 9% had no opinion either way.

    “This law will turn the huge proportion of good parents and grandparents into law-breakers and politicians have failed to hear and acknowledge the voice of NZ’ers,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    82% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law.

    When asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 31% said they would be more likely to vote for that party, 6% less likely, and the policy would make no difference to 59% of voters. 4% didn’t know.

    78% of respondents said that despite the new law, they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so.

    “This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ’ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven’t been duped by dodgy research attempting to suggest that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom.”

    When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 77% responded that it was not at all likely. Only 5% thought it was very likely, and 17% said somewhat likely.

    “This is a significant result. Politicians were hijacked by ‘feel-good’ ideology and law-making, but NZ’ers have not been fooled,” says Mr McCoskrie. “NZ’ers didn’t see the need for the law change in the first place, and they still don’t see the need. They desparately want politicians to tackle the real causes of child abuse without penalising good parenting practice.”

    “The late addition of the Police discretion clause has not reassured parents as the politicians believed it would.”

    As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MP’s to amend the bill, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

    “Parliament should also give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ – a sentiment shared by 200,000 NZ’ers who have already signed the petition demanding a Referendum on this issue,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    The poll was conducted during the week beginning June 11. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

    Read Full Report – http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Smacking%20Poll%20June%202007%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42


    8 June 2007 – The Age – Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Smacking-kids-should-not-be-outlawed-PM/2007/06/08/1181089286214.html

    Smacking kids should not be outlawed: PM

    June 8, 2007 – 11:19AM

    Prime Minister John Howard says he never smacked his children but he wouldn’t want the practice outlawed.

    Mr Howard said he did not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.

    After an anti-smacking law was passed in New Zealand last month, the Australian Democrats called for the federal government to protect children from physical punishment.

    A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.

    Asked if he smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: “No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.

    “We were not into, sort of, physical discipline,” he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

    “That’s us. I’m not telling other parents how to run their lives.”

    The prime minister said disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.

    “I do not believe the law should be changed.

    “There are laws at the moment which punish people who abuse children.

    “But reasonable discipline is not abuse. Can’t we just have a commonsense approach to these things?”

  • Some child abuse cases in NZ – since Section 59 amended

    For updates go to:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/category/some-child-abuse-cases-in-nz-since-section-59-amended/

    Some child abuse cases in NZ – since Section 59 amended

    Since the passing of the amendment to section 59, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases including:

    JUNE 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * Porirua mum and step-father charged with mistreating 3 children, including 5 year old admitted to Wellington Hospital with serious head injuries

    * 16 month old Remuera boy dies after beating while in care of relative. Sixteen-month-old Sachin died of head injuries suffered while being cared for by a relative in June. He spent three days connected to a life- support machine in Auckland’s Starship children’s hospital, before dying on June 21. An autopsy revealed he died from blunt force trauma to his head. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4204745a12855.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4221779a10.html

    * 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown.

    * Death of 22 month old Tokoroa girl from severe burns – being cared for by step-father. Claims was burnt in hot shower but 17 hour delay before arriving at hospital. Still under investigation.

    *An 18-month-old West Auckland toddler is in hospital with serious arm and leg injuries suffered on separate occasions and up to a month before medical treatment was sought. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10456014

    *Dad allegedly made girls fight for right not to be beaten. A Hastings father gave his daughters boxing gloves and told them to fight – with the loser to get “a hiding”, a court was told. The sisters, aged 11 and 13, donned the red gloves and began punching each other in the lounge till the oldest started crying. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4199250a10.html

    JULY 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * Hawkes Bay father shoots daughter with air rifle. Convicted and jailed for 6 months

    * Christchurch mum-of-two found at P Lab. Charged with failing to provide necessaries of life and allowing home to be used for manufacturing P

    * 3-year-old Rotorua girl seriously ill after 3 weeks of abuse by stepfather and extended family – now died

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4765883a11.html

    * A second Rotorua child – a 12-week-old baby – is in the Starship with suspicious head injuries. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/30-july-2007-second-rotorua-child.html

    *Boy, 8, kicked for being ‘too slow’ eating dinner http://www.stuff.co.nz/4189938a10.html

    *Five-year-old high on P in drug house. Police found a five-year-old boy high on P during a raid on a drug house where methamphetamine was being cooked in a bedroom.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4195797a10.html

    AUGUST 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * Police will tomorrow arrest a Putaruru man for allegedly using weapons to beat his two stepsons aged 13 and 14, regularly over nine months, leaving them with bruises all over their upper body. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/media_13.html

    * A five-week-old girl with multiple breaks to both arms is the latest suspected child-abuse case being investigated by Christchurch police. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4168701a11.html#Scene_1

    *A woman accused of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her 6-week-old baby has pleaded with a court to get the child back…. She has been charged with neglecting her legal duty to provide necessaries for her 6-week-old son in a way that endangered his life….Police said they had been told Kahotea-Jones took the baby to the park on an extremely cold winter’s day dressed only in light clothing. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4193313a11.html

    *Throwing pepper in a six-year-old boy’s eyes as a punishment was an unthinking act, done under extreme stress, Lower Hutt District Court was today. Craig Leslie Ozich, 31, was sentenced by Judge John Walker to 150 hours’ community service after pleading guilty to assault on a child…Judge Walker said Ozich had been boarding at a house where the boy and his mother lived. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4213154a12855.html

    SEPTEMBER 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * Yet Another Child Abuse Story. Catherine Lawson from Jigsaw, National Consultant, National Infrastructure for Children and Youth (NICY) who Witness Family Violence, speaks out following the recent case where a small three year old girl, nicknamed “Pumpkin”, who has been identified as a 3 year old child who has been living in a family violence environment. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00292.htm

    * Police investigating baby death – Jyniah Te Awa. South Auckland police are investigating two houses following the death of a 10-month-old baby girl. The girl was taken to hospital from a Manurewa address on Sunday. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4214398a10.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4215743a10.html and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10466030

    OCTOBER 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * VICTIM OF CURSE RITUAL: Janet Moses, 22, of Wainuiomata, was the mother of two little girls. She is thought to have drowned during an exorcism ceremony. A 14-year-old girl nearly died in the ritual that killed Wainuiomata mother Janet Moses. A total of six people were exorcised last month as relatives tried to drive out a makutu, or Maori curse, thought to have been sparked by the theft of a statue. The 14-year-old – a cousin of Ms Moses – was admitted to hospital before being taken into Child, Youth and Family care. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4271124a10.html Girl’s eyes gouged to get rid of devil. A 14-year-old who nearly died during an exorcism needed emergency treatment to save her sight after relatives scratched at her eyes to remove the devil. The girl is a cousin of Janet Moses, the woman who died during the October 12 ceremony to lift a Maori curse. The girl had chunks gouged from her eyeballs. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4287818a11.html

    November 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    * A mother who left her two- and four-year-old children to wander the streets unsupervised and hungry has been sentenced to community work. They also reported the children wandering outside, unsupervised and hungry, and not being able to find anything in the house but beer. Sometimes the children had injuries, including a burn to the cheek and black eyes. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4261575a10.html

    * Pregnant at 11: Kiro cites girl’s case in abuse plea – 19 November 2007
    The case of a girl who became pregnant at 11 and had her baby when she was 12 was cited by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro today when she made a plea for people to speak up against child abuse. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4280826a10.html

    December 2007

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    *Baby clings to life as police investigate injuries A two-month-old girl is clinging to life in Auckland’s Starship Hospital as police investigate how she came to receive critical head injuries. Her two-year-old sister was taken into CYF care after her parents drove the baby to Middlemore Hospital on Friday afternoon. The baby was transferred to Starship the same day, with fears she would not survive. Detective Senior Sergeant David Lynch said it was unclear how the baby received her injuries. “We’re keeping an open mind at the moment.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/4340462a11.html
    and http://stuff.co.nz/4340732a11.html and
    http://stuff.co.nz/4341634a10.html and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4346092a10.html and

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4362248a10.html

    January 2008

    * About 1,500 babies in their mother’s womb

    *Rotorua police are investigating the parents of an 11-month-old who is in Starship Hospital with a fractured skull. The baby boy has been in the Auckland hospital since January 31, The Daily Post reported today. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10492046

    FEBRUARY 2008

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz

    Another child for Sue Bradford’s Wall of Shame  Tue, 2008-02-12 18:02.  Police investigate 11-month-old with ‘bashed skull’ – 12 Feb 2008 – NZ Herald: New Zealand National news You know, I thought our kiddies were safe. That is what Sue said when they passed the law.

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
    “This latest case is yet another wake-up call, following on from the high-profile Kahui case, that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.” “An independent Inquiry would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie of Family First

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

    Read this link for more recent cases:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/category/some-child-abuse-cases-in-nz-since-section-59-amended/

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

    For updates go to:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/category/some-child-abuse-cases-in-nz-since-section-59-amended/

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`

  • 16 -31 May 2007

    Media Release
    For Immediate Distribution

    Swedish Academic Slams National MP for Cowardly Attack in Parliament Jacob Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus and Family Law at the University of Stockholm, and author (“Family Law under change”) has written to National MP Katherine Rich complaining about her cowardly and unsubstantiated attack on Swedish Lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson who recently visited NZ.

    In Rich’s speech in parliament recently supporting Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill against the weight of public opinion, Rich slammed Harrold-Claesson as a ‘fruit loop’ and ‘false expert’, all said behind the cowardly protection of parliamentary privilege.

    However, Professor Sundberg rejects Rich’s attack stating that she has “fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm.”

    Sundberg also slams Katherine Rich’s understanding and support of the Swedish experiment with smacking bans and says “Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation.”

    Katherine Rich should do her homework before making baseless and defamatory attacks against individuals, especially in the cowardly way she did behind the protection of parliamentary privilege.

    Letter from Sundberg to Kathryn Rich:
    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/letter-to-kathryn-rich-from-jacob-wf.html

    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity
    PO Box 9064
    Palmerston North
    New Zealand
    Ph: (06) 357-4399
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
    www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

    Our Home….Our Castle

    if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
    YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
    http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Chil
    dren_Goodbye_7.pdf


    28 MAY 2007 – Family First – Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency

    MEDIA RELEASE
    28 MAY 2007

    Smacking Law Hits Labour in Polls Because of Inconsistency

    The Prime Minister, in her response to calls to lower the alcohol limit for driving, has said what many parents and family groups argued should be the approach to the anti-smacking bill.

    In response to a question this morning on Newstalk ZB as to why won’t the government consider lowering the alcohol limit on drink driving, the PM’s response was

    “…I am highly conscious of not drinking before driving. I think most people are. And the question you have to ask is are you then going to bring in a rule that fundamentally changes it for highly law abiding people when the problem is with those who drink far too much.”

    We agree.

    Kiwi parents would agree.

    “This was the exact argument used by Family First regarding the anti-smacking bill, which has effectively targeted law abiding parents, while ignoring the root causes of child abuse,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Why was the PM’s logic not used in the smacking debate?”

    “As a result of shoddy and undemocratic lawmaking, ‘highly law abiding parents’ are now going to be criminalised, and threatened with investigation and intervention by CYF, because of a ‘fundamental’ law change that has no scientific support or international experience backing it up.”

    “If we are serious about reducing our abysmal rate of child abuse, the target should be parents who physically and emotionally abuse their children or neglect their needs – a far cry from a smack on the bottom by a loving parent.”

    “The Prime Minister should be consistent in her approach to law making,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42


    17 May 2007 – Commissioner For Children – Commissioner wants more integrated investment

    We need to be watching for this very dangerous legislation which leads on from the Amendment of Section 59

    Commissioner wants more integrated investment
    Thursday, 17 May 2007, 6:12 pm
    Press Release: Commissioner For Children

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00338.htm

    Media Release
    17 May 2007

    Children’s Commissioner wants more integrated investment in children

    Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro congratulates all those politicians who voted to pass the Crimes Amendment Bill (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Bill and sent a strong and united message that is consistent with a legislative and policy context that prioritises a whole child approach and working towards improved outcomes for children.

    “We now need to support this direction towards a better future with monatory policies that support this,” says Dr Kiro.

    “Today’s budget does contain some good initiatives for children although its focus is somewhat ad-hoc and not as coherent as the provisions for older people. There should be a clear strategy underpinning investment in children.”

    “It is good to see investment in education and better health outcomes for children and boosting the ability of community organisations to work with government to deliver services that support children and families”

    “New Zealand children should grow up in a safe and secure family environment, free from all forms of violence. Additional funding of $11.2 million towards programmes to reduce family violence is money well spent.”

    “I would like to see more investment in preventing youth offending. Ensuring that children are safe and nurtured, have the resources to develop to their full potential, and have their views considered in matters that affect them, is a fundamental responsibility of governments and communities and families. It also makes good sense, as it will lead to a better future for all of us. Investments in childhood are most likely to bring good returns to society as a whole. The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”

    I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential,” says Dr Kiro.

    ENDS


    17 May 2007 – The Dominion Post – New law won’t stop Bob from smacking


    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4062034a6479.html

    New law won’t stop Bob from smacking
    PATRICK CREWDSON – The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 May 2007

    Bob McCoskrie smacks his children, and Sue Bradford’s law change won’t make him stop.

    The national director of Family First New Zealand, a vociferous opponent of the Green MP’s bill to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act, said the “confusing legislation” that passed last night would not changed the way he disciplined his three children – just the way he described it.

    “I’ll continue to do it in a reasonable way and I’ll continue to do it as a back-up when other non-physical methods of discipline haven’t worked.”

    After obtaining an opinion from Queen’s Counsel Grant Illingworth, Family First cautioned parents yesterday not to incriminate themselves to police.

    Mr McCoskrie said that, under the amendment, parents could still use reasonable force for the purpose of prevention, but not for correction.

    “What the QC is saying is that if you ever do get prosecuted for giving a light smack, simply say it was for the purpose of preventing bad behaviour, not correcting bad behaviour, which shows just how ridiculous the law is.”

    Supporters of the bill relaxed yesterday as it passed with greater political support than initially expected.

    Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was hugely relieved.

    She had supported outright repeal of section 59 and had some reservations about how the amendment would be interpreted, but was happy a compromise had been reached to “allay the fears that had been whipped up among parents around criminalisation”.

    Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said he was delighted, but the challenge now was to ensure parents were equipped to deal with behavioural problems without resorting to force.

    In a rearguard action against the amendment, opponents yesterday took out full-page newspaper advertisements seeking signatures to force a referendum on child discipline at the next election.

    The advertisements warned parents that they would be criminalised if they smacked their children, and said police had confirmed they would have to investigate any complaints made against parents who smacked or put their children in time out.

    But Police Association president Greg O’Connor said he had been misquoted.

    Police would continue to investigate complaints of assault – just as they always had – but putting a child in time-out would not land a parent in jail.


    16 MAY 2007 – Family First – “I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” – Advice to Parents

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00286.htm

    MEDIA RELEASE
    16 MAY 2007

    “I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” – Advice to Parents

    A leading QC has recommended to parents that they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour once the Anti-Smacking law is passed in Parliament.

    “Because good parents who use reasonable force to effectively correct offensive or disruptive behaviour or defiance from a child will be exposed to criminal liability and investigation under the new anti-smacking law, it is essential that they receive good advice and protection,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.

    Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what “correction” means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”

    “This means that “correction” will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will “correction” be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends “correction” then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”

    “The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child’s aberrant behaviour. And if that isn’t silly, I don’t know what is.”

    Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply –

    1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

    Illingworth QC – The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.

    2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

    The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.

    “The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42


    16 May 2007 – Stuff – Copeland quitting over smacking bill

    Copeland quitting over smacking bill
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4061797a10.html

    By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 16 May 2007

    CLASH OF IDEAS: See link for photo: Gordon Copeland debating the child discipline bill outside Parliament earlier this year. It is believed the United Future MP is quitting the party as he does not agree with its stance on the issue.
    Related Links

    UPDATED REPORT: The government has been dealt a blow on the eve of the budget, with United Future MP Gordon Copeland expected to announce today he is resigning from his party in protest at the so-called anti-smacking bill.

    NZPA understands that Mr Copeland is leaving over Green MP Sue Bradford member’s bill to remove from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of “reasonable force” to correct a child.

    Mr Copeland, a Christian, has always opposed the legislation and while he voted for an amendment stating police had discretion not to prosecute inconsequential complaints he felt the bill still made criminals of parents who smacked their children.

    He would form the party with former colleague Larry Baldock who has been running a petition against the Bradford bill.

    The party would be called Future New Zealand – the name of the Christian party which the United Party previously merged with.

    When Parliament sat at 2pm National Party deputy leader Bill English questioned Prime Minister Helen Clark about Mr Copeland’s decision.

    He said the Government could now only rely on 59 votes in the 121 MP Parliament.

    “What assurances can she give as the leader of the current coalition of Labour, United Future and New Zealand First that the Government commands a majority in this House?” he asked.

    The Government’s only formal coalition partner is the Progressive’s Jim Anderton. It has support agreements with New Zealand First and United Future and a cooperation agreement with the Greens under which that party abstains on confidence and supply issues.

    The Government may find it harder passing some legislation but its confidence and supply arrangements are secure as they were when Taito Phillip Field became an independent.

    Miss Clark said that the Government continued to enjoy the confidence of the House.

    – With NZPA


    16 May 2007 – tvnz – MP quits over anti-smacking bill

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/1125832

    MP quits over anti-smacking bill

    May 16, 2007

    United Future MP Gordon Copeland is set to quit United Future over the anti-smacking bill.

    The decision leaves the government in a precarious situation. The recent defection of Taito Philip Field and now Copeland leaves the government in a true minority.

    It is understood the MP is planning to start a new political party with a former one-term United Future MP Larry Baldock.

    The catalyst for his departure is the anti-smacking bill, which will get its final reading on Wednesday. Both men vehemently oppose the amendment watering down the bill.

    Copeland will stay on as an independent

    Earlier this weka another United Future MP, Judy Turner, said she would oppose the anti-smacking bill when it had its final reading in parliament.

    While she believes the compromise amendment reinforcing discretionary powers for police was a good move she is concerned it doesn’t also apply to Child Youth and Family.

    Turner says not enough has changed at CYF to reassure her parents are safe from prosecution for lightly smacking their children.

  • Ideas: Letters to Editors/MPs

    Letter to Kathryn Rich, MP from Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus

    Letter to Kathryn Rich, MP from Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus

    INSTITUTET FÖR OFFENTLIG OCH INTERNATIONELL RÄTT
    Stockholm, May 24, 2007
    Uggelviksgatan 9
    S-114 27 Stockholm
    Tel. 08-21 62 44, 11 49 89
    Fax (+) 46-8-21 38 74

    Ms Kathryn Rich, MP
    Parliament Buildings
    Molesworth Street
    Wellington 6160
    New Zealand

    Fax 0064-4 471 25 51

    Dear Ms Rich.

    The text of your recent speech in Parliament, given May 16, 2007, was brought to my attention and since it shows a number of misunderstandings of the Swedish legal landscape, I have considered it called for to contribute some clarifications. Hopefully, they will mitigate the application in New Zealand of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act, and for such reasons I think this letter should be distributed to all the MP:s.

    First of all, however, I categorically reject your characterization of Mrs Ruby Harrold- Claesson as a “false expert” and a “fruit loop, to say the least”. You have fallen prey to a smear campaign run in Sweden by some of her adversaries in the social bureaucracy and by their leftist chums in the Faculty of Law in Stockholm, you mention Dr Diesen but there are more of that same breed. On this count, I regret that you have not been aware of my letter of January 11, 2007 to Ms Deborah Coddington which explains the situation, and I feel entitled now to include a copy of that letter for your consideration. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/03/family-integrity-154-letter-from.html

    Secondly, as a matter of fact all the examples of bad treatment of children that you mention in your speech seem to be such as fall under the criminalization of assault and battery in Swedish penal law, a long standing criminalization, antedating the legislation of 1979 which you use as a model for the NZ law reform. Consequently, your examples are simply not relevant.

    Thirdly, then, what is the 1979 legislation about? The centrepiece is the phrase which I set out in my letter to Ms Coddington “A child may not be exposed to corporal chastisement or other insulting treatment”. You will perhaps recall that when the matter was introduced in Sweden, there was very little Swedish discussion : “Characteristically for Sweden, public debate on the issue was muted” it was said in Time Magazine, April 2, 1979, p. 24. But a parallel to the Swedish legislation was introduced in neighbouring Finland with a very active, Swedish-speaking elite (1983).

    This piece of legislation – Act on the custody of children and visiting rights (lag ang. vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt : FFS 1983 No 361) – has a provision which is almost verbatim a copy of the Swedish provision, but in Finland it released a public discussion among the lawyers responsible for the drafting of the provision which is quite explicit – in contrast to what took place in Sweden. The main purpose of the act as discussed among the Finnish lawyers was to abolish the line of subordination between parents and children. For such reasons, the family tie could never be a defence in case of opposition between parents and child. This had fargoing consequences. You could not do anything to your child that you could not do to a stranger passerby in the street. That includes all forms of punishment, and it is interesting to note that even the question of libel and slander is being discussed, as indeed ‘psychological violence’ practiced upon a child – e.g. ironizing over a child’s stupid remarks. It is true that one expert thought that court cases of children complaining of being libelled and slandered by their parents were unlikely to occur and so far I have not heard of any such cases, but they certainly were possible the way the legislation was drafted. The following categorical remark of the Government’s legal draftsman, Matti Savolainen, would seem to close the discussion : “There is from now no relationship of subordination, no right to force or punish a child that could be a defence against a prosecution” “The relationship of subordination between parents and children is explicitly abolished.”

    This emancipation of the children from the family tie should of course be seen in light of the extremes of 1968 atmosphere which pervaded the 1970s in so many places, and to which the Swedish minority Government of 1978 had fallen prey, with a following in finlandized Finland where Marxism was an accepted philosophy in the hope of getting Soviet approval. In that atmosphere, the family unit was seen as an agent of conservatism, standing in the way of society´s quick transformation into true Socialism, and consequently something to undermined and sabotaged by people of the correct mind.

    Whether Sweden “benefited” from the reform as you put it, is very much in doubt as I see it. Certainly, it has undermined the family tie with a lot of mischief following. It has turned little children into informers upon their parents, and the social bureaucracy into a super-nanny with a kind of police powers as against the parents. The change in atmosphere may be applauded by leftist circles around, but it is certainly deplored by the families hit by the revolutionary zeal. No figures have ever been given showing any beneficial effect of the legislation. It may be an eye-opener to realize that the situations depicted in the enclosed cartoons represent criminal offences under the present Swedish legislation. The cartoonists do not seem to realize this, nor those do it who propagate for copying the Swedish legislation,

    Sincerely yours

    Jacob W.F. Sundberg
    Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus

    Internet-anvisningar
    Institutet för offentlig och internationell rätt
    Finns på: http://www.oior.se
    Prof. em Jacob W.F. Sundberg nås via e-mail på
    sundberg@ioir.se


    Excellent Letter to MPs from Kirsty

    Subject: Please, for the sake of New Zealand families, do not allow the Child Discipline Bill to pass into law.

    Dear National Party Members of Parliament

    The following is an excellent article, and I would urge you to read it – it should take no more than ten minutes of your time – but it shows why the Bill to repeal Section 59 is so dangerous to families in this country and why we must not allow it to pass. The article exposes the ideology that is driving the Bill to repeal Section 59, with or without John Key’s “Claytons” amendment (the amendment you have when you don’t have an amendment).

    The “amendment” that John Key supplied provides absolutely no protection or defence of a parent if they are accused, rightly or wrongly, of “smacking” their children. It is simply a tinkering with words. It was deeply disappointing to see the leader of the Opposition colluding with the Labour and Green parties in this matter. What hope does the electorate have of balanced government when there is no effective opposition; when there is no alternative point of view given except that which the State dictates?

    This bill is not about protecting children, or dealing with NZ’s child abuse tragedy – it is about allowing government, through government agencies like CYFS, to control individual families and to threaten us with the removal of our children, should we not wish to follow their agendas.

    The Bill to repeal Section 59 is of special threat to traditional families, where we seek to forge strong bonds of love, support and commitment within the individual family. We may never be prosecuted for “smacking” our children, but if we are accused of such action, we could well lose custody of our children to a government agency while we battle through the courts to regain our “right” to exist as a family. This is totalitarianism, as seen in Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Nazi Germany.

    I urge you not to allow this travesty of justice to happen here in New Zealand. I urge you to vote with your conscience, not be directed by a party ideology, when the time comes to vote on the Child Discipline/Repeal of Section 59 Bill. Please, for the sake of New Zealand families, do not allow this Bill to pass into law.

    Kirsty
    Hamilton

    How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’.

    By Lynette Burrows

    This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc. New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 – 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.

    Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications, Oxford, England.

    When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of ‘children’s rights’ is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want.

    It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.

    Analysing the ‘loaded’ message of the title ‘children’s rights’ one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word
    ‘rights’. It is utterly bogus! A ‘right is classically defined as ‘the freedom to act without interference, according to one’s conscience.’ It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their ‘right’ and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity.

    So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children’s rights activists seek to remove.

    One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don’t know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an ‘age of consent’ at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the ‘children’s rights’ lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active – there was nothing parents could do about it.

    The right for children to ‘divorce’ unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children’s rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children – but that is consistent with the philosophy of children’s rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.

    Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed ‘care’ of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her ‘right’ to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.

    Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children’s rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children’s rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools.

    Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.

    Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.

    Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children’s rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child’s best interest.

    Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children’s rights people have been ‘out to lunch’.

    Another major area where a serious question of children’s rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school.

    Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.

    The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly ‘corporal’ in school – but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don’t address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.

    Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children’s rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.

    The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children ‘in care’ are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don’t go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children’s homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.

    When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children’s rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?

    The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-forward.

    It has provided a good many jobs and the children’s rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children’s rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.

    Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.

    For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children’s rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic ‘partner’, mostly as limited companies.

    Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of ‘children’s rights’. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be ‘liberated’ from their parents care and control.

    Not having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.

    These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.

    The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970’s, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.

    As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children’s rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. ‘Unwitting’ was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its defacto abolition too.

    However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of ‘children’s rights’ clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists’ agenda.

    Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.

    Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children’s rights. I don’t know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of ‘progressive’ innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children’s rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their
    literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.

    Well, it isn’t true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed ‘The Nordic Committee for Human Rights’, which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi’s copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to ‘the parental state’ rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.

    Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called ‘Save the Children’ was begun during the 1930’s in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be ‘saved’ from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?

    They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type.

    Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .

    Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.

    The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer – incidentally, the only black one in Sweden – and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children’s rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.

    To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand – in one year!

    No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have children.

    Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it.

    Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes – even when they are murderous tyrants – so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.

    Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times.

    The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school.

    They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their ‘best interest’. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!

    By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.

    The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.

    When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, ‘Can you see many children being taken?’ she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.

    After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children’s rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.

    It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers.

    They are, by training and tradition, Marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don’t much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called ‘fathers’, even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be – but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.

    Thus, anybody who wanted to further a Marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantilise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children’s rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.

    It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies.

    Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble – they simply could not do without them.

    Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the ‘wrong’ sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.

    Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of ‘snatched’ children in Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there – looking after other people’s stolen children.

    It is incongruous, isn’t it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else’s. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.


    Letter to MPs from Saudi Arabia

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

    I just receive a news that you may voting on May 16 for a Bill that will make illegal for parents to correct their children, this mean remove from the parents their duty of educated the children in the good behavior.

    Please, do not make of New Zealand a country where the family will be debilitate, a country where children did not respects the elders. God has giving to the parents the authority to educate the children, not do try to go against God wills, this is not the smart decision.

    I am afraid that if this re-written Section 59-Parental Control, becomes a law, I will never travel to your country, will be no more a save place to visit.

    Please, Vote for the Families,

    Blessings

    P…………
    Telephone Saudi Arabia
    Cellphone Todd
    Address Saudi Arabia:
    Al Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia


    9 May 2007 – SPCS – OPEN LETTER TO MR JOHN KEY

    —– Original Message —–
    From: David Lane
    To: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
    Cc: bill.english@parliament.govt.nz
    Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:53 AM
    Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MR JOHN KEY

    Urgent Attention
    John Key
    National Party Leader

    OPEN LETTER:

    CALLING ON ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD’S FLAWED BILL

    Dear Mr John Key

    The Eathorne’s tragic case (see press release copied to all National MPs below) shows what can happen when police discretion is misapplied – charges (of assault on a child under 14 years s. 194 of Crimes Act) were pursued for inconsequential domestic force – and good parents were criminalised (convictions and heavy fines were issued).

    Of course this (unsound use of discretion) can happen under the current Crimes Act relating to s. 194 but at least a s.59 defence is actually open to parents NOW if they find themselves facing charges for using “unreasonable force” in the correction of their children (assault) and they believe they have done nothing more than apply reasonable force for correction in the circumstances. Under s. 59 (2) “The reasonableness of the force used is A QUESTION OF FACT”. Under Bradford’s flawed bill, even with the new amendment, in Court cases where it can be established that some element of correction was involved the question of “reasonableness” is NOT a question of fact that can be examined by the Court.

    If Bradford’s flawed bill becomes law there is NO defence open to such a parent, IF police, following a misapplication of their discretion, lay charges for force used for correction. (We are assuming here that there are facts that provide compelling evidence contra the police. that in reality the incident was (1) “inconsequential” in terms of force used and (2) not in the “public interest” to pursue. The problem is that 1 & 2 remain undefined! and these facts CANNOT be tested in Court).

    Under Bradford’s legislation – once in place …….

    A good and honest parent charged with assault for using what he/she genuinely believed at the time was only inconsequential force for correction, would be doing wrong not to plead guilty in Court of committing an “offence” under the Crimes Act. Why? Because the use of all force in such circumstances involving correction is defined as a criminal “offence” – an ILLEGAL act. There is NO defence open to them. They have no alternative if they wish to be dealt with leniantly by the Court. Like the Eathornes they face the full wrath of the Court Judge who made an example of them. All the police prosecutor has to do, goaded by CYFS, is to establish that the force had some sort of consequenes e.g. the child cried or felt aggrieved, so therefore the incident was NOT inconsequential.

    Inconsequential means WITHOUT consequennces.

    HOWEVER, a (disciplinary) smack is supposed to hurt and cause some minor discomfort. A smack with a wet bus ticket for wrongdoing does not constitute correction. The vast majority of NZ parents (> 80%) believe they should have a right in law – a justification – for using firm but fair corporal discipline where reasonable force is applied – eg a firm hard smack to the open hand or padded back-side. Bradford’s bill would remove any and all such justification and brand all parents who use force for correction as those who commit illegal acts (crimes).

    Just in case you think that a clever defence lawyer COULD argue that the force was “incosequential” therefore there should be no conviction…. THis is NOT an option. The questions of whether the force was “inconsequential” or in “the public interest” is NOT A QUESTION oF FACT; they are only matters that inform police discretion PRIOR to charging the offender. AGAIN THEY ARE NOT MATTERS OF FACT.

    In the current law section 2 states: “THE REASONABLENESS OF THE FORCE USED IS A QUESTION OF FACT.”

    The Court decision CANNOT turn on either of these questions. Why? Because they NOT questions of fact. The police, by proceeding with the prosecution have passed over these issued and settled these matters. They cannot cannot be revisited in Court as a ground for concluding that no offence was committed.

    The person charged, has nowhere to turn in law to secure a line of defence.

    We CALL ON YOU AND ALL NATIONAL MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST SUE BRADFORD’S FLAWED BILL

    PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL NATIONAL MPS ARE ABLE TREAT THIS VOTE AS A CONSCIENCE VOTE

    Yours sincerely

    David Lane
    Secretary
    Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.


    8 May 2007 – Letter to MPs

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

    Ms Bradford said she was ”over the moon” with the development and said it was a tribute to MMP that all parties were able to work out a compromise.
    “The children of New Zealand will be safe.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4045584a10.html

    The children of New Zealand will NOT be safe:

    1. This will make no difference to the children who are savagely beaten and violently abused every day. Most of their parents have not been listening to this debate. Mostly they don’t listen to or watch the news. They mostly watch videos and pornography. This kind of abuse is already illegal.

    2. It will make no difference to the nearly 18,000 babies that are violently pulled apart in the womb every day in New Zealand. Why do the people who are so concerned about amending Section 59 do nothing about these defenceless babies?

    3. Some children of good parents will be torn from their loving parents and put into CYFs care where they will be abused. Will that be an MPs children? Some parents will be criminalized. Or will an MP volunteer to be the first family to go to court as a test case for lightly smacking their children or putting their children in “Time Out” against their will. I think not.

    Blessings
    Barbara Smith
    Palmerston North


    Letter to Prime Minister from Timaru Lady

    Dear Ms Clark,

    I refer to your many comments in the media in respect of repeal of S59 about people hitting their children with riding crops and getting off.

    I am the mother who disciplined her son with the riding crop. This was controlled discipline, not an angry assault. My son had just swung a baseball bat at his stepfathers head. He could have killed my husband.

    After the discipline we had a well behaved, loving and compliant boy. A riding crop is designed to give a stinging sensation but is not injurious. There were no marks left on my son at all.

    I may have been acquitted, but I certainly have not “got off”. Even though I was acquitted CYF seized custody of my son, tore our family apart and nearly three years later I am still fighting to have him returned as CYF do not agree with the fact I physically disciplined, even though all forms of non physical discipline had not worked with this child and this was the only thing that did.

    My almost 15 year old son is desperate to be at home where he feels loved and secure.

    I am a responsible Mum who dearly loves her children. My sons behaviour was unacceptable. I corrected it. Repeal of S59 removes a parents ability to correct a child. Many politicans have lied about our case in order to bolster their agendas.

    I am fed up with people who were not party to the facts of our case using it as a reason to make a very bad law change.

    We have been through hell at the hands of CYF.

    My son was placed on Risperdal whilst in CYF care to modify his behaviour. This has been banned in the states for use on children because of the life threatenning side effects. The side effects of Risperdal and the psychological damage to him by being removed from a family who love him, were much worse than the thirty second sting to his bottom.

    I am still fighting for my son to be returned to my custody. The hell we have been through at the hands of CYF is a worse punishment than any the court could have issued if I had been found guilty.

    Please do not for one moment think I got off. CYF have seen that I did not.

    I ask that you reconsider your stance on repeal of S59.

    Your constituents do not support your stance according to online polls.

    If you support repeal you are supporting the destruction of many more families through state intervention as the police will involve CYF (as they do already) when investigating complaints. Even if the complaints are unfounded CYF will still hold children from their parents. I know this as I am a support worker for PANIC (parents against negative intervention of CYF) and have seen many cases like this.

    Ms Clark you are not a Mum, so you can only speculate what hell it is for a parent to have her child taken away. This punishment is worse than any that could be inflicted on a parent, short of a child dying.

    I might have been acquitted but have been punished as if guilty.

    Please do not quote our case again, unless you are properly representing the facts. Tell the public how the state have punished me even though I was found NOT GUILTY.

    If you wish to discuss any part of this email with me, please call me on……


    Sample Letters To Editors

    We intend to post here examples of good letters to editors, regarding Sue Bradford’s anti-parental authority bill, to give you an idea of what to include in your own letters, in terms of putting good arguments together. Remember, editors require you to include your name and address before they will publish your letter. Click on the link below to see the first of our samples:

    Sample 1 (actual letter to a newspaper editor)

    ————————————————-
    Sample 2

    Dear Editor

    It is ironic, that Sue Bradford and the Greens, most of Labour, CYFS,
    Barnardo’s, Save the Children, EPOCH, Plunket, Play Centres, etc, etc, ad
    nauseum, want to use unreasonable force, to force parents not to correct
    their children using reasonable force!

    Renton

    ————————————————————
    Sample 3

    Published in the NZ Herald today (25 October 2006) – Letter to Editor

    Well done to Lincoln Tan for his excellent assessment of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill or perhaps a better title “Criminalise Good Parents Who Smack Bill”.

    Tan is able to objectively assess the Bill for 3 reasons. Firstly, unlike the Children’s and Families Commissioners and organisations like Plunket, Barnados and Save the Children, he doesn’t rely on the government for funding so he can speak up honestly and break through the ‘political correctness’ stranglehold.

    Secondly, he has young children and knows the realities of family life, and the difference between reasonable and appropriate discipline, and child abuse. (Even the Children’s Commissioner acknowledges smacking her children, but has conveniently forgotten why).

    And thirdly, Tan has seen in public the effect of a lack of discipline from parents too afraid to say no. We have all seen the impact of a ‘child’s rights’ culture which has weakened the authority of parents and increased the level of defiance and disrespect shown by young people towards teachers, police and anyone in authority.

    Bradford’s Bill will just make this 10 times worse.

    Bob McCoskrie
    Family First – National Director


    Sample Letters To MPs

    Sample 1

    Subject: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    RE Bill to Repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    Please vote against this bill.

    It is not a bill to stop violence against children. Laws against violence to
    children already exist.

    It is a bill to remove all authority from parents, and to make all parents,
    especially good parents, criminals by definition.

    Yours Sincerely
    R

    From: MP
    Sent:
    To: R
    Subject: Re: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    Thanks for your email. Repealing s59 will not criminalise normal parents. Every time a parent sends a reluctant child to their room for ‘time out’ the offence of kidnapping is committed but of course the police do not intervene.

    From: R
    Sent:
    To: MP
    Subject: RE: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    Hi MP,

    Section 59 at present legitimises ‘reasonable force’. Unreasonable force is already illegal. With reasonable force repealed, then no force is legitimate.

    As no correction can be done without force being applied, all correction will be illegitimate, and thus all parents will be criminalised.

    At present, ‘time out’ is not kidnapping! It is allowed for by the use of ‘reasonable force’.

    With S59 repealed, forcing a child into time out may very well become ‘kidnapping’. It will definitely become a criminal activity, whether police prosecute or not – which is beside the point. That is why I said all parents will become criminals ‘by definition’. A person who commits a criminal offence is a criminal whether caught or charged or not.

    R

    No, I’m sorry – you are wrong in law – s59 merely provides a defence to the crime of common assault. Kidnapping is a completely different provision in the crimes Act. (from MP)

    Thanks for your reply.

    Could you please clarify. Are you saying that ‘time out’ is already a criminal activity through being in actual fact ‘kidnapping’? Thus parents who use ‘time out’ are already criminals in law – and not protected by S59?

    I did not introduce the ideas of ‘time out’ or kidnapping. I was addressing the use of ‘reasonable force’. If ‘reasonable force’ is repealed, what is now legitimate ‘reasonable force’ will become common assault – a criminal activity. This it seems to me would include the reasonable force used to correct a child by ‘reasonably forcing’ them into ‘timeout’ or to ‘stand in the corner’.

    Parents will become criminals by definition – guilty of assault – by using such force, whether charged or not. A person is a criminal because they commit criminal activities, not because they are caught or charged for doing so.

    It is not good for parents that they are criminals by definition – nor is it good for children. The Bill to repeal s59 should be voted down.

    from R
    Thanks – kidnapping occurs when another is confined against their will. Force often accompanies an act of kidnapping but not necessarily.(from MP)
    [R] I don’t see how kidnapping can occur without force. Force is not necessarily physical manhandling. It can be threats and intimidation where one ‘forces’ their will on another. Assault provisions include such things.

    [MP] You become a criminal when convicted of a crime. A crime has two elements – the action and the thought accompanying the action – both elements must work in tandem.
    [R] I beg to differ. Being convicted may very well be the formally identification of a person as a criminal. However since certain actions are defined as criminal, when those actions are committed, the person who commits them becomes a criminal by doing so. The law can’t get at thoughts, only actions, and thus it is actions that are against the law, though in totalitarian states people are convicted for ‘thoughts’.

    [MP] You give the impression of sincere and caring – you are most unlikely to act in a criminal way.
    [R] Hope so and agreed. However if s59 is removed, if I corrected my grandchildren, I would be acting in a criminal way according to the law. I would be prepared to break such a law because it is perverse, and contrary to a higher law. Repeal of s59 will further lower respect for the law.

    [MP] S59 provides a very narrow defence – that is of correction which differs from discipline. It is a difficult provision in practice.
    [R] Correction is a specific part of discipline, which is a broader concept.

    [MP] The police do not investigate every criminal allegation – they have a filtering process. They act only on complaint. What happens in the home tends to stay in the home. The fact of someone complaining about a parents relationship with their child is unusual and is indicative of underlying problems and the matters about which you write do not fall into that category.
    [R] I’m not sure about whether you are wanting to allay my fears here. But you have not.

    With section 59 gone, what happens in the home most definitely will not stay in the home. And anyway, there are plenty of times correction needs to occur outside the home, in public. All that is needed is for some individual who has an over inflated sense of their own righteousness, such as many social workers, teachers, or just common busybodies, to dob a parent in and police will have to act. The classic case of the ‘Timaru riding crop woman’ had the police reluctant to prosecute but they were pressured to do so. And she still hasn’t got her children back, even after being acquitted!!!

    Also children could very well dob in their parents without understanding the consequences either for themselves or their parents. This is documented in Sweden, and even though the children have tried to withdraw the complaints, they have not been allowed to.

    (Apparently a ruling as just been established in Nebraska where smoking is banned and people are being encouraged to ring 911 [111] to dob people in they see smoking!!!)

    [MP] If you have little trust in the police, then you must consider a further restraint on their decision making and that is the courts. Judges are intolerant of trifling prosecutions and have powers to address that issue – these powers are rarely used because the police a very responsible organisation
    [R] I would like to think of the police as a ‘very responsible organisation’. However they are just normal human beings, with all the foibles any of us have. ‘Abuse’ of children is not a trifling matter, and that is what normal parental correction will become if S59 is removed. I have witnessed police abuse of people. I do not wear rose coloured glasses.

    [MP] I replied to your original email because there is much scaremongering and it appears to me for a different agenda.
    [R] There is very widespread concern (polls show consistently over 80%) about what is in store if s59 is repealed. I think these fears and concerns are justified and are not the result of scar mongering at all, and is why I encourage you to vote against repeal.

    Emphatically the repeal of section 59 is for a different agenda than that stated. If it really was about child abuse, all the present laws against child abuse would be being used, and abortion, the ultimate in child abuse would be opposed most vigourously. This is certainly not happening.

    All the best

    R

    —————————————————-
    Sample 2

    MP
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    In EPOCH’s media release of 24 August 2006 they say “During the debate about whether or not to repeal s.59, some New Zealanders have expressed a fear that decent, loving parents would be criminalized for minor physical punishment of their children, if s.59 were repealed. That fear was based on an assumption that parents who smack their child would be reported to the Police and that every report would result in a prosecution.“

    This can be likened to speeding on New Zealand roads:

    Is it illegal to go over 100 km per hour? Yes it is.

    Do New Zealanders travel faster than 100 km per hour? Yes they do.

    Do they all get prosecuted? No they don’t.

    Only the ones that are caught or reported on are prosecuted.

    Do Police have blitzes to crack down on speeding? Yes.

    This would be the same if a parent lightly smacked their child if Section 59 is repealed. Parents will continue to smack their children:

    Will they all be prosecuted? No, definitely no.

    Will some be prosecuted? Yes, definitely yes.

    If some are brought to the notice of the Police then they will have to
    prosecute and it will be a crime in the absence of Section 59 which
    could mean up to two years in jail. But even worse than the parent being
    put in jail is the fact that CYFS would most likely put the children in
    foster care. This is violence that we cannot tolerate. Reasonable force
    is not violence. But taking children from parents who have used
    Reasonable Force to correct their children is violence.

    There are already laws against those who abuse children. Maybe these can be tightened up more.

    So please vote against the repealing of Section 59 and leave it as it is. It is a brilliant piece of legislation. Those who drew this up are to be congratulated on writing a piece of legislation that has lasted through the years and one that does not exclude anyone’s worldview.

    Sincerely,
    Barbara Smith

    ——————————————————-
    Sample 3

    24 October 2006

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

    Please keep Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961

    The worst abuse of children is in the womb.

    We have a Children’s Commissioner, Dr Cindy Kiro who is doing nothing for any baby/child in the womb. She says that her job begins at the birth of a child. I showed in my original submission to the Select Committee in the UNCROC preamble and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 24 that the unborn should be a concern of the Children’s Commissioner. Dr Cindy Kiro should be sacked for ignoring the gross violence occurring every day of every year in this country to at least 17,000 children yearly.

    Repealing Section 59 will not stop the roughly 12 child murders a year happening in New Zealand. It hasn’t in Sweden and it won’t in New Zealand. This is “Household Structure Violence”.

    Repealing Section 59 won’t stop the most gross of all child abuse in New Zealand-the 17,000 abortions.

    These are the areas that need to be worked on, not the law abiding conscientious natural family.

    Please keep section 59 as it is.

    Sincerely
    Barbara Smith

    ———————————————————-
    Sample 4

    From: R
    Sent: Monday, 23 October 2006 05:04 p.m.
    To: MPs
    Subject: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    RE Bill to Repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    Please vote against this bill.

    It is not a bill to stop violence against children. Laws against violence to
    children already exist.

    It is a bill to remove all authority from parents, and to make all parents,
    especially good parents, criminals by definition.

    Yours Sincerely
    R

    From: An MP
    Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 8:56 a.m.
    To: R
    Subject: RE: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    Thanks for your email. I do support the repeal of s59 Crimes Act 1961.

    Regards

    An MP

    From: R
    Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2006 9:13 a.m.
    To: An MP
    Subject: RE: Please vote against repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act

    So…can I clarify, you support stripping parents of authority making them
    unable to legitimately correct their children, and turning parents who do
    correct their children into criminals by definition?

    R

    —————————————————-
    Sample 5

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    Please consider that the Bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act is thoroughly irrational:

    It does nothing to reduce violence at all, violence which is already illegal…..go for the drug and alcohol abuse, the family breakdowns, the porn industry.

    It will re-define those thousands of parenting activities that require “reasonable force”….carrying a reluctant child to bed, making an objecting child finish its veggies, forcing a rebellious pre-teen to take off that obscene t-shirt…..into acts of criminal assault.

    Since repeal would drastically lower the threshhold of what constitutes assault (there no longer being a legal definition of acceptable or “reasonable” force), any show of force at all will fall under the definition of assault and will in fact increase the occurrence of “violence” against children. That must inevitably, logically lead to an increase in parents falling foul of the law.

    Please vote against the Bill to repeal Section 59….Keep Section 59 just as it is.

    Regards,

    Craig Smith
    PO Box 9064
    Palmerston North

    ——————————————————–
    Sample 6

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    The reason given for wanting to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, and even for wanting to more closely define “reasonable force” is to reduce violence toward children. Often reference is also made to our responsibilities under the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC).

    Can anyone among the MPs explain why UNCROC is brought up in relation to parental physical discipline, even though this is not addressed at all in the UNCROC document nor was it addressed or even brought up in the preparatory works of UNCROC?

    And can anyone among the MPs explain why they think allowing 17,000 mothers a year to premeditate upon, hunt down and kill their own unborn children is not rapidly forming a culture of death and destruction to the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society when UNCROC does in fact address this? UNCROC says in its preamble that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

    The Greens and Labour especially appear grossly inconsistent to worry about children getting smacked for disciplinary reasons, but totally ignore over 17,000 a year who are purposefully hunted down and killed because they are inconvenient.

    To many New Zealanders, this is far worse than being inconsistent: it is sickeningly immoral.

    Regards,

    Craig Smith
    4 Tawa St.
    Palmerston North
    (06) 357-4399

    ———————————————————
    Sample 7

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    Those promoting the repeal of Section 59 make the incredulous statement that the purpose of changing the law is education rather than prosecution.

    This is simply daft.

    The law does educate, yes, but it only does so by punishing law-breakers.

    As long as some parents are prosecuted for using reasonable force to correct, train and discipline their children, other parents will learn either to avoid using reasonable force or to avoid being noticed by going underground.

    Isn’t it interesting how in these enlightened times, homosexuality and prostitution are no longer criminalized and driven underground, but these pro-repeal of Section 59 groups are keen to criminalize parents and drive them underground?

    Please do the sensible thing and vote against the repeal of Section 59. Section 59 is a brilliant piece of legislation: keep it as it is.

    Regards,

    Craig S. Smith
    4 Tawa St.
    Palmerston North

    —————————————————-
    Sample 8

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    I’ve seen the letter from past Police Commissioner Robinson which said that if Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, smacking will be an assault. I’ve also seen the letter in which current Police Commissioner Broad says that Commissioner Robinson’s comments were both accurate and authoritative.

    Bradford made a point of saying in her Bill’s Explanatory Note that the purpose of repeal is so that smacking would then be subject to Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act which says assault on a child is worth as much as two years in jail.

    Now Bradford, who has vehemently opposed any idea of defining “reasonable force”, has herself come up with a definition, “light smacks”, which she says won’t be counted by police as acts of assault. Well, anyone reading the legal definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act knows how ridiculous that assertion is.

    The justification of this Bill is becoming increasingly irrational. Can any MP please explain how Bradford’s “light smacks” do not constitute a definition of “reasonable force” and also how “light smacks” do not qualify as assault when Police Commissioners Robinson and Broad both appear to say they will?

    Thanks for your help.

    Regards,

    Craig Smith

    ——————————————————
    Sample 9

    “Re: Proposed repeal of section 59 (parental use of reasonable force)

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    A. Repeal of s59 unlikely to have intended effect

    I am an Emergency Department doctor and the father of a 3-year-old son.

    In the course of my work, I occasionally encounter non-accidental injuries such as brain haemorrhage or long-bone fractures to young children. These are tragedies which should never be allowed to happen. However, these are already illegal under the current legislation because they are certainly not “reasonable force”, so repealing section 59 wouldn’t prevent them.

    B. Repeal of s59 likely to have unintended effects

    On the other hand, I am deeply concerned at the unintended effects that the repeal of section 59 would have. It would become illegal to firmly hold the hand of a resistant child while crossing the road; and illegal to swat the hand of a 1-year-old who repeatedly reaches for hazardous items despite being told “No”.

    I recently spent two months working in Queensland Australia, where reasonable force on children has been illegal for some time. It was noticeable that most parents attending our Emergency Department were unable to control their small children. Toddlers would refuse to take essential oral medications despite cajoling, and the nurses and parents would simply give up. (In New Zealand and other states of Australia, the staff will carefully overpower the child and squirt the medication into their mouth). Children would sometimes come up to my son in public playgrounds and either hit him or take his own toys away from him, and their parents would just stand by—what could they do?

    Non-compliance in young children can be lethal: a two-year-old girl was reported in the Queensland media earlier this year as having been killed by dogs because she climbed over two fences to get to the dogs’ enclosure. In two months in Queensland I personally treated two cases of 1-year-old children who had pulled down hot liquids onto themselves, causing significant burns. While every reasonable step should be taken to make a child’s environment safe, it is not feasible to make a typical home as safe as a padded cell. I believe it is better for a child to be trained to be compliant—including the careful use of reasonable force when necessary—rather than go without essential medications or be scalded or killed by dogs. I see far more children who have injured themselves through non-compliance, than I see of children injured by their parents.

    I therefore urge you not to support the repeal of section 59 because repealing it would not reduce intentional physical injury to children and would probably increase accidental injury rates.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr Graham Paul, MB ChB Otago 1989, BSc Hons(1) Canterbury 1982.”

    MP’s RESPONSES

    Chester Borrows’ media statement of 11 October 2006 read:

    “NATIONAL TO SEEK AMENDMENT TO SECTION 59 BILL

    National MP Chester Borrows will seek to introduce an amendment to Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Abolition of Force as Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

    It is clear from listening to submissions and comments in the media from proponents that both sides want the same things:
    To send a message that child abuse is wrong while accepting that legislation alone won’t stop it.
    To stop parents who moderately and seriously assault their children from hiding behind section 59 when they should be convicted.
    To not criminalise good parents who occasionally smack their children, because it is not in the best interests of children for this happen.
    The real debate is whether protection afforded to parents and children should be enshrined in legislation or left to government agencies to make social policy by way of guidelines.

    It’s our job to make laws that are clear and concise and that work, not to abrogate the responsibility for lawmaking by handing it over to unelected officials.

    My first amendment will make it the role of the judge to decide if section 59 can be applied in the circumstances of the case, and then the jury would decide if the force used was reasonable. This provides a filter so juries cannot misapply section 59 out of sympathy.

    My second amendment restricts reasonable force to no more than “transitory and trifling discomfort”, which drastically lowers the bar on the level of force that can be justified by section 59 — currently the law allows injury to be justified.

    The public are screaming out for a common-sense and moderate approach to be introduced to this debate. I believe this is fairly represented in the proposed amendments,” says Mr Borrows.”

    She adds, “For background paper contact Kim Juergens 021 402025; Inquiries: Chester Borrows 021 722636.”

    Several other National MPs wrote brief but supportive replies, indicating their opposition to the repeal of s59.

    ——————————————————–
    Sample 10

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    I am writing respectfully to urge you not to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    If you repeal it, you will leave me and many parents without any legal defence against the charge of assault, when we force our children to do things which they do not want to do eg. go to bed at a decent time of night, or when we discipline them for lying or deliberately disobeying a reasonable house rule.

    In fact, you will most definitely turn us all into criminals when we use reasonable force by way of correction or training on our children. MP Sue Bradford and organisations like Barnados
    and Unicef may wish you to believe that this Bill will not criminalise all parents who believe in and practise disciplining their children, because not all will be prosecuted. However, criminalisation does not equal prosecution. A man who breaks the law is by that fact a criminal, whether or not the police find him out and prosecute him.

    Thus, by simply going about their parenting duties, using and backing up their authority with reasonable force for the purpose of training and correction of their children, normal law-abiding parents will be made criminals and liable to prosecution, if and when you would vote into law the Crimes Amendment Bill. I strive to be a law-abiding citizen and a good, loving parent, but you will, by one amendment to the Crimes Act, turn me into an outlaw.

    Is that really going to address the violent child abuse you are hoping to reduce? There are already laws in place against child abuse. Section 59 has never been shown to be protecting
    those who are truly abusing their children.

    Therefore, please do not change a law that is already working well. Vote to retain section 59 as is.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely

    Ed Rademaker

    —————————————————
    Sample 11

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

    My wife and I have three daughters. They have all married over the past
    three years, the last just two weeks ago.

    They are all productive, highly motivated, and caring, and are exemplary
    citizens.

    They all had ‘reasonable force by way of correction’ applied to them as
    children, from a warning of consequences if a course of action was
    continued, to being smacked on a few occasions when they exhibited serious
    rebellious behaviour, to being forcefully restrained, or removed from a
    situation when they threw a tantrum.

    They all are very grateful that we loved them so much we disciplined them as
    we did.

    They do not have children yet but are all talking about starting a family.
    They all intend to use reasonable force by way of correction to train their
    children.

    They have never committed any criminal actions, as Sue Bradford has.

    They have never assaulted anyone, as Sue Bradford has.

    In her own words she said she has been through the courts ‘on many occasions’
    and also that she has ‘been charged with assault’.

    And yet this Sue Bradford who has ‘been charged with assault’, aims to bring
    my three daughters, who have never assaulted anyone and who are exemplary
    citizens, down to her level by turning them into criminals by definition.

    Further, every time she equates smacking with beating/child abuse she
    accuses me and my wife of being child abusers – something we find highly
    offensive – and yet we have successfully raised our children to be exemplary
    citizens, as those who know them will testify!

    Such arrogance and offensiveness is almost unbelievable, her being willing
    to smash into my family with the weight of law and the abusive power of the
    state, intending to criminalise my daughters and their husbands for raising
    their own children such that they will turn out as exemplary citizens also.

    Please vote against Bradford’s bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    Regards

    —————————————————
    Sample 12

    Hello all MPs,
    There were some rather vigorous oral submissions against
    the proposed repeal of S59. .

    According to the dogma of proponents for repeal, that vigor would
    indicate a propensity to “abuse” children by smacking. So – any
    anonymous complaint to CYFs under CURRENT legislation could see those
    children removed, because only “reasonable grounds to suspect” that they
    ‘might’ be “at risk” is enough for CYFS to act under the Care of
    Children Act and the CYF Act. And who defines “risk”? CYFS do.

    CYFs need to be made accountable – their actions must be subject to due
    process of law – upheld or overturned in open court. This basic
    provision of natural justice must be reclaimed.

    Without S59 that will be impossible – repeal will strip the courts of
    discretion as to what is “reasonable in the circumstances” for training
    children (correction).

    CYFS currently exercise power to withhold children from parents declared
    innocent by the courts.
    Repeal will render every child in the country ‘fair game’ to CYFS
    because the last shred of accountability will be removed and there will
    be NO legal recourse.

    Taking children from parents who discipline because they care is worse
    than abuse, akin to bereavment or kidnap because there can be no
    closure, no peace – no hope of restitution.
    Will you condone sentence without trial?

    And did you know CYFS may LEGALLY use UNLIMITED degrees of force to
    remove unwilling children? Parents can’t but ‘Big Brother’ can! Check
    the statutes!

    Section 59 is the last bastion against the nationalisation of children
    and child welfare, because responsibility for children is at stake. No
    hyperbole here. Without S59 we move from democratic freedom to statism.
    From justice to oppression. Do you think the Kiwi is SO apathetic that
    he will NOT fight for his children??
    Would you be surprised if force was met with force? Would YOU sit still
    and see your loved ones taken away for a mere smack on the bottom????
    —————————————————
    Sample 13

    To: Members of Parliament
    House of Representatives
    Wellington

    19 February 2007

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I have read the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) which I understand was released on 20 November 2006.

    I am grieved by the suggestions of the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee (“the Committee”). Their suggestions to me seem based on political expediency rather than based on what is best for children, what is best for parents, what is best for families and even what is based on common sense. Their suggestions have no authoritative basis, unlike section 59 which is based on the authority of the Bible (which has no higher authority).

    Let me explain:

    The Committee describes the purpose of the Bill in paragraph 3 which is to, “make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.” Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 never allowed for the use of violence, only for the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. So there is no need to repeal section 59 in order to protect children from violence. Children are already protected from violence under other sections and other Statutes.

    The Committee in its new proposed section 59, subsection 2 desires to remove from parents the ability to correct their children. Section 59(2) states: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” The Committee will allow the use of reasonable force for the purposes of minimizing harm, preventing criminal activity, preventing offensive or disruptive behaviour or performing normal parental tasks. But the Committee specifically prohibits the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. Why would they do that? What is so onerous about correction? A simple dictionary definition reveals that correction is absolutely necessary in order to train children in right, good and correct behaviour. Correction is in effect teaching a child: “This is what is right and this is what is wrong. You need to do what is right. To help you do the right, I will chastise or reprove or correct you when you do the wrong and lead you forward to do the right.” Children need pro-active training and correction in order to bring them to mature, responsible adulthood. They need to be corrected when they engage in wrong or bad behaviour and need to be taught what is good and right behaviour. Not to do this, and to legislate against this amounts to negligence. It is a parent’s God-given duty to train children in the way they should go. Parents are not just there to prevent harm, criminal activity or offensive behaviour. Parents are to parent, that is to rear and nurture their children, to train and educate them. This is proactive and it requires that parents be able to correct their children which the dictionary would define as “to scold, rebuke, or punish in order to improve.” If parents are disallowed to correct their children, it is the police who will eventually be the ones who will find it necessary to correct them. Society will suffer as a result. We are seeing this exact thing happening in Sweden, the country who has been the vanguard down this track. Throughout the Continent it would appear that Swedish youth are establishing a reputation as undisciplined hooligans. The newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported on June 2, 1995, that drug use and violence are escalating out of control. A report by the Criminal Care Ministry (Kriminalvardsstyrelsen) from January 1995 says that serious crime has risen 25% in Sweden since 1990. A report from the Criminological Institute of Stockholm University in September 1995 states that adult crime in Sweden has risen 80% since 1975. John Bates reported that, “In April of this year police and public prosecutors were called to a crisis meeting to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation. The desperate tone of the meeting was summed up by Christer Van Der Kwast of Stockholm county public prosecutors office who said in a statement to the press: ‘We are very disturbed by the situation, especially as it is not a question of small time crime, but crimes of violence. We are sitting on a time bomb.’” Per Bylund said about Swedish youth that, “a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations.” People who want to repeal section 59 often argue that such a move will reduce violence in New Zealand. This has not been the case in Sweden. The opposite has been true. This is simply because children need their parents to correct them away from violent behaviour. Where parents are disallowed from doing this, the inevitable result is that the police and society are caught in the fallout: they have to deal with the violence. Parents must not be allowed or forced to be so negligent.

    The suggested repeal and substitution of section 59 to remove from parents the ability to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction is not good for children. Children need and desire correction and guidance. They want to be taught right from wrong and good from bad. I am only just on the other side of childhood. I remember how it was. I wanted my parents to teach and correct me. I wanted them to smack me when I had done something wrong. It was hard to do what was right sometimes, but it was a whole lot easier to do what was right after a smack or with the threat of a smack. I was very grateful that my parents smacked me. Most of my brothers and sisters are still children. They articulate this same thing. They want Dad and Mum to correct them and they are grateful for smacks and other uses of reasonable force which correct them from bad behaviour. Even my six-year-old sister understands this and articulates this. Parents need to be able to use reasonable force to correct their children. Families need parental authority and child discipline for them to function as a cohesive, loving unit.

    One thing I have noticed from the Committee and the Bill is the implicit, philosophical idea that children really don’t belong to the parents, they belong to the State. Contained in this idea is the presumption that the State knows better than parents how to parent and that parents are simply babysitters for the State. I object to this idea. We all, including children belong to God. God gives children to parents. And God instructs parents how they are to raise their children. It has nothing to do with the State. It is scary in the extreme the implications of a State believing that they own the children. This idea is reprehensible. It is totalitarianism.

    Please, as Members of Parliament, as politicians, as representatives of children, parents and families, please recognize that children are the responsibility of parents, not the State. Parents need to be able to determine when and how to use reasonable force to correct their children without the fear of police, State or CYFS intervention.

    It has been clearly shown by cases such as the Timaru woman who smacked her child with a riding crop that even when the judiciary declares a woman to be innocent of abuse CYFS feels like they are a law unto themselves. They have not returned the woman’s son and are also out to get the woman’s daughter. Parents, and young people like myself who hope one day to be parents, fear that regardless of the intention of this Bill, State agencies like CYFS will continue to do whatever they like and will interfere with families who smack their children. Once CYFS has interfered with your family, life as it was is never the same. Perhaps the Government should be more concerned by the abuse of children by its own State agents.

    Please protect children, parents and families and show a little common sense: Please vote against this Bill.

    Yours truly,
    Genevieve Smith

    Sample 14

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Paraliament

    Please read this article below which appeared in the NZ Herald yesterday.

    Please answer this question for this prosecuting lawyer and for me:

    “Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.”

    Blessings
    Barbara
    4 Tawa Street, Palmerston North, New Zealand
    Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

    if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
    YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
    http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

    27 March – NZ Herald – Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10430966

    Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law

    Tuesday March 27, 2007

    One of the great ironies of the anti-smacking debate is Sue Bradford’s touching faith in the police and the justice system – and even more ironic given her former life as a protester and champion of the powerless, during which she certainly clashed with police on occasions.

    I have two perspectives on the debate. As a mother of pre-schoolers I have my personal views, which have changed since I had children.

    But whether I choose to smack or not to smack – or whether anyone does – isn’t the issue. I know that as a middle-class woman in a happy marriage my chances of being prosecuted for smacking are practically nil.

    I have another perspective. As a criminal lawyer who has both prosecuted and defended people charged with assaulting a child I think the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act will have disastrous and unnecessary consequences for a small group of people.

    The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community – and their children.

    I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that – unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59.

    I drafted an indictment against a man who was convicted of smacking his 4-year-old son about five times on the backside with an open hand, leaving marks.

    I think the jury convicted because the man smacked his boy too hard and because the boy was smacked not for a deliberate misdemeanour but because he soiled himself.

    I prosecuted a man, a loving father, for using a belt on his mildly intellectually handicapped and very challenging teenage daughter after she damaged her bedroom.The jury were hugely sympathetic to the father but when I asked them in closing if they would not have intervened to stop the man had they been in the room at the time I knew they would find him guilty.

    I saw the realisation dawn in their eyes. Not one of them would have stood by and let that happen “as a father’s right”, so they could not say it was reasonable discipline.

    I’ve had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer, but I’ve never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: “Look, bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.”

    Of course there will be the occasional case where section 59 has excused parents who overstepped the mark, but these are not cases where a child has been thrashed or beaten or injured. I challenge anyone to find a case where section 59 has excused a real bashing that left a child injured.

    In my experience of those sorts of cases, the section 59 defence simply isn’t used. The accused denies the assault. New Zealand juries are not stupid.

    Sue Bradford doesn’t trust the New Zealand public so I find it amazing that she has so much faith in both the police and the justice system.

    She is proposing to give a huge amount of discretion to individual police officers.

    She expects them to wisely ignore the letter of the law. They won’t. I know this and so does National MP Chester Borrows, with whom I worked and who was a superb, wise and compassionate detective sergeant.

    The police may not, and I’m sure will not, prosecute every case of smacking, but they will be obliged to at least investigate – and therein is the harm. Picture this: a child at the centre of a custody battle comes back from an access visit. Mum questions the child: Did Daddy smack you? Has Daddy ever smacked you? The child says yes.

    Mum takes the child to the police station. She is vocal and upset. “Investigate” sounds benign. It is not.

    That child will be put through the evidential interview process. It’s not a process you want your child involved in. Dad will be asked to go to the police station to make a statement.

    All this will probably be good for lawyers. Probably no charges will be laid, but the child and the family will have been through a traumatic and damaging experience.

    This scenario will happen without a doubt. It will happen over and over again and the children at the centre of Sue Bradford’s concern will suffer it. The poor and powerless will be far more vulnerable.

    Most police are honest and upstanding and we are lucky to have them.

    Some are not. Some get caught up in a “means to an end” approach to criminal law. Some will use this legislation – and the discretion it gives them – for the wrong purpose.

    It won’t be me or people like me who suffer this. It will be the very people Sue Bradford has fought for in so many other ways.

    The Government should forget party politics on this one. We are lucky to have an experienced former police officer, who also has a law degree, sitting in the House. He is saying, for many different reasons, don’t give the police this much discretion. He’s right, and we should listen to him.

    * Michele Wilkinson-Smith is a lawyer

    Sample 15

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Barbara Smith
    Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 7:37 a.m.
    To: ‘pm@ministers.govt.nz’
    BCC: janderton@ministers.govt.nz; shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz; chris.auchinvole@parliament.govt.nz; rbarker@ministers.govt.nz; tim.barnett@parliament.govt.nz; david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz; paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz; dbenson-pope@ministers.govt.nz; jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz; mark.blumsky@parliament.govt.nz; chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz; sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz; peter.brown@parliament.govt.nz; gerry.brownlee@parliament.govt.nz; mburton@ministers.govt.nz; ccarter@ministers.govt.nz; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; john.carter@parliament.govt.nz; steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz; charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz; ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz; pm@ministers.govt.nz; bob.clarkson@parliament.govt.nz; jonathan.coleman@parliament.govt.nz; judith.collins@parliament.govt.nz; brian.connell@national.org.nz; gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz; clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz; mcullen@ministers.govt.nz; dcunliffe@ministers.govt.nz; ldalziel@ministers.govt.nz; jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz; brian.donnelly@parliament.govt.nz; peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz; hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz; rdyson@ministers.govt.nz; Bill.english@parliament.govt.nz; russell.fairbrother@parliament.govt.nz; darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz; taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz; christopher.finlayson@parliament.govt.nz; jeanette.fitzsimons@parliament.govt.nz; teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz; craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz; martin.gallagher@parliament.govt.nz; pgoff@ministers.govt.nz; jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz; mark.gosche@parliament.govt.nz; sandra.goudie@national.org.nz; tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz; nathan.guy@parliament.govt.nz; hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz; ann.hartley@parliament.govt.nz; george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz; john.hayes@parliament.govt.nz; phil.heatley@parliament.govt.nz; tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz; dave.hereora@parliament.govt.nz; rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz; marian.hobbs@parliament.govt.nz; phodgson@ministers.govt.nz; phoromia@ministers.govt.nz; darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz; paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz; shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz; sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz; john.key@parliament.govt.nz; aking@ministers.govt.nz; colin.king@parliament.govt.nz; wlaban@ministers.govt.nz; keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz; moana.mackey@labour.org.nz; smaharey@ministers.govt.nz; nmahuta@ministers.govt.nz; tmallard@ministers.govt.nz; wayne.mapp@parliament.govt.nz; ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz; murray.mccully@parliament.govt.nz; sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz; doconnor@ministers.govt.nz; mahara.okeroa@parliament.govt.nz; pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz; dparker@ministers.govt.nz; allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz; wpeters@ministers.govt.nz; jill.pettis@parliament.govt.nz; lynne.pillay@parliament.govt.nz; simon.power@parliament.govt.nz; katherine.rich@national.org.nz; mririnui@ministers.govt.nz; ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz; heather.roy@parliament.govt.nz; eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz; tony.ryall@parliament.govt.nz; dsamuels@ministers.govt.nz; katrina.shanks@national.org.nz; Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz; clem.simich@parliament.govt.nz; lockwood.smith@parliament.govt.nz; nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz; lesley.soper@parliament.govt.nz; barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz; maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz; paul.swain@parliament.govt.nz; nandor.tanczos@parliament.govt.nz; georgina.teheuheu@parliament.govt.nz; lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz; jtizard@ministers.govt.nz; anne.tolley@parliament.govt.nz; chris.tremain@national.org.nz; metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz; tariana.turia@parliament.govt.nz; judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz; nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz; kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz; maurice.williamson@parliament.govt.nz; margaret.wilson@parliament.govt.nz; pansy.wong@parliament.govt.nz; doug.woolerton@parliament.govt.nz; richard.worth@parliament.govt.nz; dianne.yates@parliament.govt.nz
    Subject: Please do not repeal or amend Section 59. Please keep it as it is.

    Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

    Please do not repeal or amend Section 59. Please keep it as it is.

    Thankyou
    Blessings
    Barbara
    4 Tawa Street, Palmerston North, New Zealand
    Phone: (06) 357-4399 or (06) 354-7699
    Fax: (06) 357-4389
    http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz
    http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

    if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
    YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
    http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

    Sample 16

    —–Original Message—–
    From: admin@familyfirst.org.nz
    Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2007 9:20 a.m.
    Subject: Organisations OPPOSING ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill

    Please forward to your local MP

    Just some of the
    Organisations OPPOSING ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill

    1. Family First NZ
    2. Sensible Sentencing Trust
    3. For the Sake of our Children Trust
    4. Grey Power
    5. Te Whanau O Waipareira Trust
    6. Lifespring Pasefika Trust
    7. NZ Centre for Political Debate
    8. Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (SPCS)
    9. Family Life International
    10. Kip McGrath Education Centres NZ
    11. Focus on the Family NZ
    12. Crosspower Ministries Otara
    13. Samoa Community Council of Waitakere City
    14. FamilyLife NZ
    15. Vision Network
    16. Affirming Works (AW) South Auckland
    17. Parents Against Negative Intervention by CYFS (PANIC)
    18. Families Apart Require Equality (FARE)
    19. Pacific Resource Centre Dunedin
    20. Drug Proofing Your Kids (DYPK)
    21. West Health Fono Trust
    22. Family Education Network
    23. HandsonEqualParent Trust
    24. Voice for Life
    25. section59.org
    26. Home Education Foundation
    27. Affinity Child & Family Services
    28. Children and Family Work
    29. MOPS NZ [ Mothers of Preschoolers]
    30. Drug-ARM Tauranga
    31. Right to Life New Zealand Inc
    32. Youthline Manukau
    33. Drug Arm (Blenheim) Inc
    34. Sowers Trust
    35. Parents Against Bullying Support Group
    36. Family Integrity
    37. VOICE Hibiscus Coast
    38. Family TV
    39. VOICE Helensville
    40. Courageous Women
    41. Trinity Broadcasting Network South Pacific Ltd
    42. Marriage Works
    43. Franklin Christian Lobby
    44. GCC Public Affairs Group
    45. Promise Keepers NZ Ministry With Men Coaching
    46. VOICE Waikato
    47. Family Federation for World Peace and Unification
    48. Family Ministries New Zealand (YWAM)

    And probably many more – who unfortunately are government funded, and are therefore concerned that their public opposition to this Bill will affect their funding.

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz | About us | Media Centre | Contact Us | Support Us |