The final vote in Parliament was 113 in favour and 8 against the bill to criminalise parents by making the correction of children a criminal offense, a subset of assault, worth as much as two years in jail.
The passage of this bill has tipped New Zealand into the cauldron of socialist totalitarianism. This is more sophisticated than the old USSR technique of ruling by sheer terror and sealing the borders. This new version weakens all resolve by offering every financial support, even for the most irresponsible of lifestyles (the excesses of the social welfare system), and then it controls children’s affections by the intense indoctrination of the compulsory secular school system and ease of access to all manner of inappropriate viewing and listening media, and then it controls parents by threatening through CYFS and other interventionist bureaucracies to take away even their few hours of caring for their children each day, after the schools have already robbed them of their affection and loyalty.
“If the major political parties had allowed a conscience vote on this bill as originally promised, the bill would have been dead and buried at the 2nd reading,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “It is tragic that while the government turns a blind eye to the major problems of gang violence, drunken teen parties, the ‘P’ epidemic, violence in schools, violence towards police, gambling addiction, housing concerns, and breakdown in families, they have found plenty of energy and time to pass a law that targets good parents doing a great job.”
Bob forgot to mention the abortion industry which encourages mothers to pre-meditate upon killing their own children and the assisted suicide and euthanasia movements which want to change the public’s attitude toward death from the curse that it is, brought in as a result of the original sin of our original parents, Adam and Eve, to a welcomed friend, one that would soon be introduced to babies born with even the most minor defects, including the non-preferred gender, and into hospital practice for the helpless, the cantakerous, the demented. And let’s not forget the porn industry, which is defiling more and more school children on and off campus. All these things promote a culture of death and despondency, purposelessness and meaninglessness. But they foment dysfunction, and that helps fire up a perpetual motion and income-generating circus of social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, counsellors, foster agencies, foster homes, women’s refuges, politicians and innumerable child-advocacy groups, all feeding off this increased dysfunction. Sadly, none of these groups ever focus on working themselves out of a job.
A Family First press release tells how a leading QC has recommended to parents that, now Bradford’s bill has passed, they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour. This new Section 59 makes child correction a criminal act. Grant Illingworth QC said, “The difficulty…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 [actions allowed by this new Section 59]. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
Mr Illingworth went on to say that this is of enormous importance, for if a parent intended to “correct” a child’s disruptive and offensive behaviour, and this intention came to light in the course of an investigation, that parent would have no defense against a charge of criminal assault, even though the force used would appear identical to that which another parent might use simply to prevent the continuation of disruptive and offensive behaviour.
“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.”
What Now?
One must evaluate one’s options in the light of whether one’s child rearing practices are likely to be incriminating and whether they are likely to come to the notice of either CYFS or the Police.
A police officer informed me last night that they will have to investigate any reported case of force used to correct. This will obviously be an interpretation on the part of whoever makes the complaint. But because this kind of complaint will fall under the category of “domestic violence”, and the police have a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence, they will have to investigate. Remember, this includes a lot more than mere smacking. It is about any use of force: taking a child’s arm, hand, shoulder to direct them in a certain direction when disruption, offense, criminal activity or harm are not at issue; confinement against the child’s will; requiring dress and grooming codes to conform to your tastes when the child objects and a large section of society would find nothing offensive in the child’s choices; and prohibiting your children from associating with persons or visiting premises about which you do not approve but which are not illegal or obviously harmful.
Parenting must start early. Train your children to think and believe and react as you do from day one. Do not expose them too much or too early to worldviews and ways of which you do not approve if you do not want them to develop a taste for them or a desire to try them out. Sending one’s children to public schools takes on a very serious set of implications as a result….you must be prepared to have your children adopt ways of thinking, dressing, grooming, speaking, obeying, disobeying, attitudes and values that are not your own, for you will be virtually powerless to correct them. If anyone knows how to correct error or misguided or inappropriate or unhealthy or unwholesome or undesirable or ways that are just plain wrong….if anyone knows how to effect correction without the use of any kind of force, many others would like to hear about it. It appears to me that parents will be reduced to advisors of autonomous children. From my reading of UN documents and particularly of Michael Reid’s book “From Innocents to Agents” (Maxim, 2006), that is precisely the objective of those behind this bill.
Some have suggested we get the Governor-General to withhold the Royal Assent.
I clearly recall that then GG Sir Paul Reeves signed into law a bill that forbids the GG from withholding the Royal Assent. He was GG from 1985 to 1990. Actually, I’ve had a look around the internet and can find no evidence of this, although I clearly remember it being discussed in the news of the day.
“The Queen reigns, the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives” This is the simple rule that keeps things ticking along. Until the Parliament votes itself dictatorial powers and abolishes elections, the GG will not withhold Royal Assent.
(Start Quote)
Constitutionalists differ as to what these powers [of the Governor-General] might be. I will give you five. There is no doubt about the first. Some would doubt the last. The five are:
(1) to appoint a Prime Minister;
(2) to dismiss a Prime Minister;
(3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament;
(4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and
(5) to refuse assent to legislation.
Examples of the use of all but the first of these powers are rare, and are always controversial. Indeed, the very rarity of their exercise gives rise to contentions that they have ceased to exist at all. That is particularly true of the last of them.
(End Quote)
So it would appear that we can forget thinking about that route.
What are some other alternatives?
I have already received copies of letters people have sent to MPs stating clearly that they will not obey this bill if it is passed into law. This is one way to react: simply disregard the law and be prepared to suffer the consequences. These include prosecution and a criminal record. Such a record will bar you from travel to some overseas destinations….the USA, for example, will not issue a visa to people with criminal records. It will bar you from certain occupations and job/career opportunities. But the most frightening prospect is having CYFS take your children. This will break your heart, crush your spirit, drain your assets and drive you deep into debt. And it is likely your children will also suffer REAL abuse at the hands of CYFS and foster homes.
Another is to decide to modify your child-rearing practices to what you think the law may be saying. This is extremely difficult for nobody knows what it says. It will require a number of test cases to establish precedents and definitions. Each test case, I would suggest, will represent another family chewed up and destroyed by this process.
Another would be to become very discreet about how you operate, that you train your children not to talk about anything that goes on or is discussed within your home. (Oh, darn….how does one train a child…would that not include correction and force?) You may want to monitor all your children’s conversations. Again, children spending so much time at school, away from your guidance and influence, takes on a new perspective. Teachers, of course, will be instituting new safety programmes and children’s rights programmes which will spell out to children what their parents can and cannot do. The legislation that was just passed is extremely vague, but the programmes in the schools will not be vague: they will be clear and extreme. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 of June 2006, outlines how all “academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups”, etc., must be recruited in the monitoring of the implementation of laws such as the one just passed. This document equates any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, with violence, abuse, cruel and degrading punishment. (It is a fascinating read, 17 pages, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.)
One may also consider emigration to Australia. NZ passport holders only need to get on a plane. Once there you can stay as long as you like and take up employment immediately. There are only some social welfare benefits that would not kick in till you’ve been there for two years. Native English speakers can get jobs teaching English in local schools in many places in the world with few or no qualifications at all. I know people who have done exactly this in China, South Korea and Turkey. Those countries are not likely to have such insane legislation passed as we’ve just had any time soon. The USA and Canada are also possibilities. The USA has a lot of red tape to cut through to gain residency, but untold numbers of Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Americans have been pouring across the border for over 30 years virtually unchecked and seem to get permanent residency and jobs with little difficulty.
I’ll have more information on Australia in another post soon.
16 May 2007 – Family Integrity #252 — The Petition
Dear Friends,
Also: Be sure to sign, if you haven’t already, the petition to get this issue to a national referendum at the next election. You’ll find the petition in today’s (Wednesday 16 May) NZ herald, Dom Post, Christchurch press and Otago Daily Times.
Please also snip these petitions out of the paper and go to your neighbours and at least fill in the 10 signatures of both parts of the petition. Then send it in to the address indicated.
If we get 300,000 signatures on this petition (and we’re well over half way already) by Feb or March next year, 2008, it WILL BE an election issue, forcing the MPs to revisit this bill regardless of how the vote goes today.
16 May 2007 – Family Integrity #251 — Section 59 – Please send one last email by 2:00pm today
Greetings All
This is our last email to you before the vote for the most extreme anti-smacking law in the world (according to Dr Robert E Larzelere).
There will be a two hour discussion before the vote today.
I spoke to three different offices in Parliament to try to determine when the discussion and vote will be. It wont start before 4:00pm and may not start until after the tea break 6-7:30pm.
While talking to one office, the secretary told me that of all emails the MPs have received, they have consistently been 80/90% against the repeal or amendment of Section 59. Around the time of the first March on Parliament they received about 30 emails from those who are for repeal. So even since the amendment the emails are consistently against repeal. At the time that I was talking to the secretary she looked at the inbox of an MP and all 16 emails were against repeal.
Let us all send one last email to the MPs even if it is just “Please Keep Section 59” or “Section 59 – Vote with your Conscience” in the Subject line. The MPs need to know that we are against this right up to the end. That the 83% of us have not been swayed by Key, Clark and Bradford. The amendment is no protection for good parents. It is the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law. If the MPs want to be in Parliament at the next election then they should vote against this Bill. Information on sending emails is at the end of this email.
“It’s the people against Parliament now!”
1. From: Ron Mark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: Most extreme legislation
Dear Correspondent,
Mr Mark has voted against the bill at 1st and 2nd readings – he sees it as interference in people’s lives to an unnecessary degree. He also does
not believe it will have the effect of reducing real child abuse, which he abhors. He voted for the amendment at the committee stage because, as it was evident the bill is going to pass, it was better to soften it than have it pass unadulterated. Having said that, however, he believes the amendment to be a nonsense. His intention is still to vote against the Bill in its entirety at the third reading this week, as he is fundamentally opposed to it. Regards, Jan Dyer,
Executive Assistant to Ron Mark MP, New Zealand First, Ph +64 4 4706693, Fax +64 4 4712414
At the moment this is how the MPs intend to vote unless they change their minds at the last moment:National, Labour, the Greens the Maori Party, and Progressive now support the bill while NZ First (at least 2 against) and United Future (2 against) are split. ACT’s two MPs and Taito-Field will vote against the bill.
4. You might like to send this whole article http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html to the MPs – Maybe if they get it 50, 100 or more times then they might read it before the debate and discussion (click on the link then copy and paste in a new email and copy the link too, then send to all the MPs) Here is a snippet from the article:
Politicians will vote this week on the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says “…the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties …. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.” Read more here: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
3. Re-written Section 59 — Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
——————————————————————————–
Please get your friends, neighbours and relations also lobbying the MPs. The fight must go on in the name of Freedom for families!
Please forward this email to your friends, neighbours, relations, Church email list, club email lists etc
——————————————————————————–
16 May 2007 – Family Integrity #250 — May God have mercy
16 May 2007 – Family Integrity #250 — May God have mercy
Dear Friends,
Today our Parliamentarians vote on a bill to make it a criminal offense for parents to correct their own children. The term “correct” is not defined. It will make any act of physical discipline, training, chastisement and possibly much more into a criminal act of assault, worth as much as two years in jail, regardless of how light or reasonable the force used, and regardless of the child’s act of disobedience or destructiveness or dishonesty or disrespect, and regardless of any other circumstances. It is not even clear if it is only in relation to physical force…it could apply to moral force, verbal force, intimidation, removal of privileges, grounding, time out…..nobody knows since none of these things have been defined or delineated. The Bill appears certain to pass, barring a last minute miracle.
All parents in this country will become criminals who are simply awaiting the time when they will come to the notice of the police (teacher asking children at school which of them gets smacked, an angry child or nosey neighbour or vindictive relation reporting, etc.). We talked to a police officer yesterday who confirmed to us that any such report they will have to act on as it will be considered an act of “domestic violence”, a category of crime for which the police have a zero tolerance policy.
Please email or phone your MP one more time today. May God have mercy on us all.
ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill.
“It’s all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it’s wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.
“I don’t believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there’s only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.
“Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
“The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.
“Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford’s Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.
“It’s an atrocious Bill. That’s why we need a free vote” said Rodney Hide.
RODNEY HIDE MP
Leader ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472 http://www.RodneyHide.com http://www.act.org.nz
May 1407 Clark and Key
14 May 2007
Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings
Dear Helen and John
On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted
Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.
The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.
In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.
John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
“If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so
completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?”
It’s a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford’s Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.
John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn’t it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.
Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday: “…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there…”
If it is truly the “overwhelming majority” of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don’t, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.
ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That’s ridiculous. The Bill’s purpose makes this clear. It 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.”
Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.
New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn’t change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way.
All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.
The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It’s simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.
I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus’ a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand
14 May 2007 – United Future NZ Party – Turner to oppose Bradford Bill
Monday, 14 May 2007, 10:16 am
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Monday, 14 May 2007
Turner to oppose Bradford Bill
United Future MP Judy Turner today announced she will be voting against the third and final reading of Green MP Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill when it next comes up for debate in Parliament.
“I do believe that the amendment passed last week to clarify the police discretion to not prosecute when it is not in the public interest to do so, was a definite improvement,” says Mrs Turner.
“However, this provision does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family.
“Some would say that it is pure hysteria to suggest that parents will lose their children into care if they lightly smack their children.
“Well I hope they are right. CYFS certainly don’t have to meet the same burden of proof as the police do to make an arrest, so discretion is even harder to determine.
“Currently this agency has no robust complaints service and because this is lacking there is little feedback across the department about the need to change social work procedures.
“They do acknowledge that most complaints are about social work provision, but there is no break-down of this to identify if there are any common themes in these complaints.
“Parents I have dealt with fear making a complaint in case they further jeopardise their case. They feel powerless and understandably emotional, often lacking the skills needed to make calm representation to staff at the local branch office.
“To date, not enough has changed in this department to reassure me that good parents are safe, and for this reason… I am not supporting the third reading of this Bill.
ENDS
13 MAY 2007 – Family First – MP’s to Vote on “Most Extreme Anti-Smacking Law in World” – Expert
MP’s to Vote on “Most Extreme Anti-Smacking Law in World” – Expert
Politicians will vote this week on the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says “…the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties …. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.”
Dr Larzelere also highlights concerns of immigrants to NZ with the law and says “The New Zealand bill’s proponents claim that missionaries were responsible for introducing smacking and bashing to the Maori and other South Pacific peoples. The irony is that they are doing the same thing they accuse missionaries of – imposing a European philosophy of child correction on native ethnic groups – this time enforced with criminal penalties.”
He warns that the law to be voted on this Wednesday by Parliament “…runs counter to scientific evidence, previous experiences with similar bans, and the wisdom of previous generations as far back as we can remember. It illustrates the world’s increasing inability to work out well-reasoned balanced positions rather than forcing people to choose between polarized extremes.”
Dr Larzelere compares our politicians’ efforts to ban smacking with US President George W Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and says Bush “…had an overly optimistic view about invading Iraq because they heard only one optimistic side of the scenarios. Now our country is in a quagmire with no good way out. For the sake of New Zealand’s children and future, I hope they have a better exit strategy than George Bush.”
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
9 MAY 2007 – Family First – Save the Children Report – Further Proof that Smacking Isn’t the Issue
MEDIA RELEASE
9 MAY 2007
Save the Children Report – Further Proof that Smacking Isn’t the Issue
The latest report from Save the Children “State of the World’s Mothers 2007 – Saving the Lives of Children Under 5” is further evidence that the proposed ban on smacking is a ‘feel-good’ policy which has been adopted by 17 countries now without any identifiable or tangible benefit.
For the child death rate in the developed world, NZ currently ranks 21st. Of the top 20 safest countries, less than half have banned smacking. And the worst country for child deaths, Romania, banned smacking 3 years ago.
“Save the Children in New Zealand have trumpeted this report as further evidence that section 59 should be repealed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “yet this report is simply further proof that groups like Save the Children, Barnardos and EPOCH are barking up the wrong tree in relation to child abuse.”
“The report quite correctly identifies the health and well-being of the mother, the availability of skilled health personnel during births, education and poverty as key contributors to children being at risk.”
The report reiterates the issues that Family First is highlighting. It says “Factors such as single parenthood, low levels of maternal education, teenage motherhood, substandard housing, large family size and parental drug or alcohol abuse increase the risks that a child will not survive to age 5.”
Mr McCoskrie says it is time that groups like Save the Children, CYF and UNICEF in NZ started reading their own reports and started advocating for dealing with the actual causes of child abuse, rather than attacking good families.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
6 May 2007 – Family First – ANTI-SMACKING BILL
06 May 2007
Hi Barbara,
ANTI-SMACKING BILL
Can Parents Have Confidence in the Proposed Anti-Smacking Law?
But Clark said the proposed change was a “breakthrough” in that it provided assurance to good parents who were concerned they could be prosecuted for lightly smacking their children under the bill. She said the bill as it stood would have never done that, but inserting police guidelines into the legislation made that clear. – Helen Clark (NZPA 2 May 2007)
” National Party Leader John Key is pleased Labour will adopt a version of his amendment to the anti-smacking bill which he thinks will give parents confidence they will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children .” – John Key (Media Release 2 May 2007)
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS!
The amendment simply says they may not be PROSECUTED for smacking their children – if the police thinks the force is “inconsequential” (whatever that means) and “not in the public interest” (but there is HUGE public interest by anti-smacking groups to ban all force.)
In response to an email from Family First to the Police Association, where we put a couple of scenarios of how a harrassed mother may deal with a child who is being defiant and a member of the public or even the child complains to the police, they said
“The important thing to remember is that in both cases, a complaint has been made and police have an obligation to investigate. A file will be created and it will be assigned to an officer to investigate. They will interview witnesses, etc, as we always do, to establish the facts to the extent they can. It is then that a decision will be made.
Had Section 59 been repealed, under police policy, if there was evidence of an offence, the offender would have to be arrested. Now there will be a test applied as to whether the force was inconsequential or not which essentially means police can and will exercise some discretion.
As to whether CYFS will be notified, the answer as I understand it to be, bearing in mind I speak on behalf of the Association not Police, is that there is likely to be a notification if it is established some force has been used. This is the practice where a complaint involving a child is made. ”
ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT LIGHT SMACKS WILL STILL BE A CRIME
AND THAT ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST A PARENT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REFERRED TO CYF??
– despite the supposed compromise reached by Clark, Key and Bradford???
We believe that John Key and Helen Clark should make good their promise that parents will not be criminalised for lightly smacking their children. This should be explicitly spelt out in the legislation – not left to the Police. This would avoid good parents coming under the weight and stress of an investigation by the police and CYF if a malicious or unecessary complaint is made against them.
GOOD PARENTS DESERVE THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW
There are 3 things we’d like you to consider doing – if you agree with our concerns:
1. Email all NATIONAL MP’s and ask that John Key’s promise to parents is stated explicitly in the law – that parents will not be criminalised for light smacks. Also ask for a Conscience Vote on the issue
3. Continue to gain signatures for the Referendum.
There are already over 160,000 signatures on this petition demanding a Referendum on this exact issue “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a Criminal Offence in NZ”
The ramming through Parliament of the deeply unpopular anti-smacking bill is the clearest sign yet that under MMP the ‘tail is wagging the dog’. As Iain Gillies wrote in an editorial in the Gisborne Herald last month: “Widespread antipathy to Sue Bradford’s bill on parental smacking could unwittingly provoke renewed calls for a review of the MMP voting system. The motion does not figure much – yet – in either public discussion or the parliamentary debate, but may well get traction when voters consider to whom their MPs are beholden; their party hierarchy or the electorate (To read the article click here http://www.nzcpd.com/research.htm).
MMP was sold to New Zealanders as a system that would improve representative democracy in this country so that the views of the voters would hold more weight. Surely, no-one could have envisioned the situation we now find ourselves in whereby, in spite of overwhelming public opposition, a list-only minority party is being allowed to foist onto New Zealanders the sort of anti-family legislation that would make Karl Marx proud.
The anti-smacking bill is the brainchild of Green Party MP Sue Bradford. In a 2005 article entitled Vote Labour Now to Smash Capitalism Later, the Communist Workers’ Group states: “A Labour government may need the backing of the Greens. Commentator Chris Trotter said that the New Zealand Greens are probably the most left-wing Green party in the world that has made it into political office. On the face of it there seems to be some truth in this with people like ex-Socialist Action League member Keith Locke and ex-Workers Communist League member Sue Bradford”. (See Aotearoa Independent Media Centre http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/37062/index.php)
So unbelievably, because of the support of the Prime Minister, a former Workers Communist League member is now set to impose her ideology onto New Zealand. British journalist Lynette Burrows in an article How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’ explains what’s behind the ideology:
“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… The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be – but you wouldn’t 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. It is not about the elevation of children’s rights at all. It is all about the crushing of adult ones”. (To read the article click here http://www.nzcpd.com/research.htm)
Complicit in this attack on parents is Helen Clark who, badly needing Green Party support after the abdication of Philip Field, has done everything in her power to get this anti-smacking law passed: she has prevented her MPs from exercising a conscience vote, she attempted to get the bill passed under urgency, she tried to adopt it as a government bill, and now, in what must be one of the greatest political coups in New Zealand’s history, she has duped the National Party, United and New Zealand First into supporting a Claytons amendment.
The new amendment provided by the Law Commission – under instruction from the Prime Minister – and tabled in Parliament by the Leader of the United Party, changes nothing. As the law now stands if a complaint is laid about a parent smacking a child, the police are required to investigate and to notify the Department of Child Youth and Family. As a result of such an investigation the Police already have the discretion over whether or not to prosecute: if the matter is minor and of no public interest then there will be no prosecution. The much-heralded new clause – which astonishingly gained the support of even those MPs who were vehemently opposed to Bradford’s bill – simply re-states the law as it stands. (To read the original Police advice to the Select Committee click here http://www.nzcpr.com/policeadvice.pdf).
What this whole exercise has shown, is that under MMP calculated cunning is the name of the game. As long as the ruling party can cobble together sufficient support in the House – using whatever trickery it can dream up – any sort of radical new law can now be imposed in New Zealand without public mandate. Nothing is sacred, not even our right to run our own families as we see fit.
Democracy is meant to be government for the people, by the people and of the people. It is meant to respect the rights and freedoms of each and every citizen. What we have under MMP is government by political unions – the political parties – which collude to seek electoral advantage so they can push their ideology into law in order to satisfy the special interest groups that provide their support. All that matters is whether they have the numbers: the question of whether a proposed public policy change will serve the common interest and the public good appears to have been subsumed by the desire to be seen to be winning a victory in Parliament.
Most of the time they get away with it, but this time, with public opinion polls showing that the views of over 80% of New Zealanders are being ignored by our MMP parliamentarians – who look set to pass the anti-smacking bill into law – then surely it is time to question the electoral system itself.
Peter Shirtcliffe has always held serious doubts about the suitability of MMP for New Zealand. He is the NZ Centre for Political Research guest commentator this week. In an article entitled The Nonsense of the List MP he explains:
“One of the most heavily-promoted arguments in favour of MMP was that its introduction would transform for the better the way in which Parliament worked. We were promised… greater sensitivity to the wishes of the Electorate”.
Peter goes on to say: “The signs of politically-driven control agendas are starting to show and objective common-sense solutions will not readily emerge from arrogant, unelected MPs who are at the same time seeking ways to use more taxpayers’ (your) money to fund their own organisations”.
Peter is not alone in believing that a further referendum on MMP is now warranted – although he does note that it is extremely unlikely that such an initiative would be generated by this Parliament. I suspect that a good many of the 1,032,919 voters who supported MMP in the 1993 referendum did so believing that if it didn’t work out, they were going to be given another chance to change it in a later referendum.
With the vexed question of how to best to safeguard ourselves from hasty, unwise or ill-considered legislation uppermost in our mind, maybe the time is now right for that long-awaited binding referendum on whether MMP has delivered to New Zealand a system of government that ensures that not only do our elected representatives reflect the will of the people, but they are also committed to protecting their rights and their liberties.
The poll this week asks whether you would support New Zealand holding a binding referendum on MMP.
To vote click here http://www.nzcpr.com/
Last week’s poll asked: Do you you support government funded legal aid for environmental activists driving a political agenda? The result: 3% voted Yes, 97% voted No! Hundreds of the comments submitted on this issue can be seen here http://www.nzcpd.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=179.
HOUSEKEEPING:
Please feel free to send this newsletter on to others who you think would be interested and encourage them to visit the website and register for the newsletter.
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.nzcpd.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.
5 May 2007 – Family Integrity – Politicians Party over Parental Sellout
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Politicians Party over Parental Sellout
No matter how you slice it, Bradford’s original intention in repealing Section 59 was to make criminals out of parents who dared to use any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, to correct their own children, a core responsibility of parenthood.
This amendment does not effect this intention one iota: which is why Bradford is so happy and did not pull the bill.
If this bill goes through, parents wanting to correct a child’s bad behaviour or speech or attitude or values or morals will be committing a criminal act if any force of any kind is used. This is way beyond smacking, which significantly isn’t mentioned anywhere in the bill. To correct a child is at the very least to force the parent’s will on the child, however that is done: physical force; appeals to cultural, social, religious or traditional standards; warnings of loss of
privileges, intimidation, etc.
And to show how encompassing this criminalisation is, neither Bradford nor anyone else has yet bothered to define what “correction” means, even though it is about to become the latest crime to be added to the Crimes Act. Neither is the term “force” defined nor limited to only physical force.
Every parent in the country is under threat.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
kearney.blogspot – Meet the new bill, same as the old bill
It is always possible for the police to refuse to prosecute on the grounds that there is no public interest. If they can do it when the Prime Minister commits fraud they can certainly do it when a parent lightly smacks their child. However, the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute and the bill does not change that. When opposition MP Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament, police did choose to prosecute. Now for light smacking, then will be able to prosecute as and when they choose, based on race, gender, previous convictions, political party membership or any other grounds they see fit.
There are a couple of misunderstandings now out there.
The normally sensible Audrey Young http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437478 in the Herald declares that “The compromise explicitly tells the police not to prosecute inconsequential ‘offences’”. A simple reading of the text of the amendment is enough to see that this is not so. It explicitly says the police have discretion.
Dave at Big News http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-support-smacking-amendment-as-most.html says: “It is the intent of Parliament that is most important – even more important than the wording of legislation itself.” This is a common misconception, even among law students. The intent of Parliament evidenced by Hansard etc. is looked at when an Act is ambiguous (it shouldn’t be but that is a story for another day). This Act is not ambiguous. It’s the police’s choice.
I suppose a defendant might seek judicial review of the decision to prosecute, but judicial review is weighted in favour of the government decision maker, even in criminal cases. To show that no reasonable decision maker would have found there was any public interest at all in prosecuting sounds like a very uphill battle. If the defendant suspects police bias against them for some reason it would be very hard to prove that as well.
I was wondering how Helen Clark could come out of this looking good but her amazing political cunning has manifested itself yet again. Two days ago her party was backing a bill opposed by 80% of New Zealanders. Since then, the bill has not materially changed, the opposition are now supporting it, and a smokescreen has been created that will likely persuade many of those 80% that the bill is not too bad, especially given the compliant nature of the media coverage.
Harking back to yesterday’s suggestion by Larry Baldock that Clark was facing a caucus revolt, here’s where Harry Duynhoven was at;
Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven last night revealed how close he came to crossing the floor over the Bradford bill.
Mr Duynhoven is one of Labour’s more conservative MPs, and was frequently challenged by National MPs to vote with opponents of the bill.
“On this issue I have been more torn than any other issue we have debated in this House,” he said.
“I have seriously considered whether I fitted still, whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in.”
Personally I don’t think he was on his own. But now we will never know.
With the amendment we will have the police defining what is acceptable. If they don’t want to make that call they can refer the case to CYF. What is CYF’s directive? As always they will be using their discretion based on evidence and testimony. So what happens before a case reaches court is pretty much the same.
Thereafter, the accused will have no defence of reasonable force and the court will have to decide what is and isn’t ‘inconsequential’. Things have just become a lot murkier. What was bad legislation has been turned into worse legislation and so it will be passed.
There will be more reports because the population, thanks to this extraordinary debate, is charged up about the moral rights and wrongs of smacking.
And given the result, it’s a debate that has been a waste of time. Except for the CIR petition that asks govt to do something meaningful about child abuse.
3 May 2007 – newstalkzb – Unrest in National ranks over smacking bill
3 May 2007 – newstalkzb – Unrest in National ranks over smacking bill
There is disquiet among a large number of National MPs over their leader’s decision to strike a deal with Helen Clark over the anti-smacking bill.
Newstalk ZB’s political staff say news of John Key’s late night meeting with the Prime Minister came as a complete surprise to National’s caucus.
National and Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson says the anti-smacking bill is home invasion. He says the compromise reached with the Labour Party was a caucus decision.
Mr Clarkson says National has let Labour off the hook with the deal. He says he would have left Labour to be hung out to dry, as the public reacted to the controversial bill.
One senior National MP says most party representatives are going to hold their judgement on the move, after gauging media and public reaction.
Another says while National has been instrumental in brokering near political consensus on the issue, many MPs are unhappy they will end up supporting a bill which they are opposed to, as is the majority of the public.
Both agree that the decision could be a stroke of genius, or a serious setback and that only time will tell.
Pundits hail a political consensus. National and Labour have done a back-room deal on an amendment to the “anti-smacking Bill,” and parents apparently no longer have anything to fear. But when the smoke and mirrors are rolled away, the effect of the Bill has not changed. The Bill would still mean that good parents who use mild correction are committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether they are prosecuted.
The amended Bill says that the Police will not have to prosecute “where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.” But immediately preceding this is the statement, “Nothing … justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” In other words, parents who use mild physical force for correction, such as a light smack, will be acting outside the law and subject to Police scrutiny, investigation and possible prosecution.
The problems with this proposal are legion. To begin with, we should only call something criminal if it is worthy of prosecution and conviction. This proposal attempts to fudge the issue and falls foul of this standard. It also gives the Police wide discretion and raises the spectre of discriminatory enforcement. The requirement that prosecution be in the public interest may sound reassuring, but different prosecutors will take different views of what it means, and the Law Commission has said that Police have been known to continue with some cases which are not in the public interest. Significantly, the limitation would only apply to Police, not to other government agencies, and not to private citizens, who are able to prosecute for breaches of the criminal law.
The amended Bill is highly unsatisfactory, but seems likely to be passed in just a couple of weeks with almost no scrutiny or debate.
Family First Calls for Clark and Key to Allow Conscience Vote on Bill
Family First is calling on the leaders of the National and Labour party to allow a conscience vote for their MP’s on the final reading of the ‘anti-smacking’ bill in two week’s time.
“If this revised bill is as good as both John Key and Helen Clark are claiming, then they should have no problem allowing their MP’s to vote with their conscience as was previously promised,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.
On March 22 of this year when Labour were attempting to place the bill under urgency, John Key said “The Labour-led Government knows the (anti-smacking bill) is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill.” (http://johnkey.co.nz/index.php?/archives/60-Labour-shows-contempt-for-New-Zealanders.html)
Mr McCoskrie believes that MP’s within both the Labour and National Caucus are still deeply unhappy with this law change, and know that parents in their local electorates are not happy with them having to support the bill.
“A good law will have the support of MP’s, who in turn know that they have the backing of the people. That’s democracy. This bill still doesn’t have a public mandate.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill.
Good on John Key I thought. He’s taken the high ground and made a difference. That’s what I thought. Until I saw the amendment.
It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it’s Helen Clark!! This amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms “inconsequential” and “public interest”.
Then John Key wips the National Party caucus to vote for it. So now Labour and National are voting for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. The criticisms National made of the Bill still stand except now they are all voting for it.
But get this: I move Chester Borrows’ amendment last night because he wouldn’t. That defines clearly what is allowed and what is not. National voted against it, including Chester.
It must be the jet lag or something. I can’t figure it out!
Party leader Bernard Darnton today confirmed that Libertarianz opposes John Key’s sell-out on the anti-smacking bill.
“John Key is utterly worthless. I have no idea why he doesn’t just join the Labour Party,” Darnton said in disgust.
“Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill effectively nationalises New Zealand’s children by removing parental discretion in how to raise them. It is ‘nanny state’ in its most literal form. Helen Clark’s amendment, which John Key has lapdoggedly pursued, does nothing to change that.”
Looking at EXPORTING?
“All this amendment does is give Police discretion in deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest. As ministers of the current government already know, the Police already have that power.”
“The amended bill will not necessarily prevent the Police from prosecuting trivial cases. It will not prevent CYF from making its victims’ lives a misery. It will not prevent private prosecutions – against which there will now be no defence – from malicious ex-spouses. It will not make the tiniest bit of difference to those who already seriously assault their children.”
14 May 2007 – Family Integrity #249 — Section 59: Police and CYFs are not to be trusted
Greetings
Only two days until the vote on Wednesday 16.
Here is some URGENT reading for you which clarifies some of our concerns about Section 59. We can’t trust the Police or CYFs as our Government plans to vote on the the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world.
1. Politicians will vote this week on the world’s most extreme anti-smacking law in the world, according to Dr Robert E Larzelere, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, who was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction for the debate on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill.
In a commentary written after his week in NZ earlier this month speaking with politicians and media, he says “…the imminent New Zealand smacking ban is more extreme than Sweden’s ban in three ways. Using force to correct children will be subject to full criminal penalties …. Sweden’s ban had no criminal penalty. In addition, New Zealand’s bill bans the mildest use of force to correct children, not just smacking. This removes most disciplinary enforcements parents have used for generations, especially for the most defiant youngsters. Finally, the required change in disciplinary enforcements will be the biggest change ever imposed on parents.” Read more here: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/13-may-2007-family-first-mps-to-vote-on.html
2. “However, this provision (the new amendment in Section 59) does not apply to Child Youth and Family Services (CYFs) who, like the police, have statutory powers and can remove your children, limit your access, and eventually in the interests of permanency, place them with a new family. Read more here: http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/05/14-may-2007-united-future-nz-party.html
3. Investigate has been shown the names and specific allegations about a large number of current and former police officers alleged to have been involved in multiple rapes, drug deals, extortion, perversion of the course of justice, sexual misconduct, abuse of power, bringing the police into disrepute, abduction and kidnapping, fraud and a range of other crimes. Multiple police districts and National Headquarters are involved. There is far, far more than we have published in this major investigation.
The magazine is calling for an immediate, full Royal Commission of Inquiry into the performance of the New Zealand Police, with wide terms of reference and full powers to subpoena, compel and take evidence on oath. Our informants do not believe the police have sufficient integrity to investigate these allegations against senior officers, and no other independent law enforcement agency exists capable of investigating the police. http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html
Please do not grow weary during these last hours. Please contact your MPs URGENTLY. Thursday will be too late.
1. Lobbying tools
We need to let the MPs know that we, the majority, do not agree with this re-written Section 59. If you have never written a letter or email to an MP before then now is the time to do it.
EMAIL: Consider sending an email to all the MPs using one of these links several times over the next 11 days:
3. “Re-written Section 59 — Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
——————————————————————————–
12 May 2007 – Family Integrity#248 — Two excellent video clips
Dear Friends,
Two excellent video clips on Section 59
Jason, 11, speaks out.
Pator Peter Mortlock at Wellington Rally on Section 59: At last, some clear and rational words of truth!
Bradford and Clark must be howling with glee and derision. They’ve outlawyered (not to mention out-politicked) opponents of their Bill.
The ‘compromise’ words have no legal effect. They merely “affirm that the Police have a discretion not to prosecute“ – meaning that no new discretion is added, only the existing rules and duties apply.
Worse – to escape prosecution the smack must be “so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution“. Those words can’t have had competent legal consideration from any opposing lawyer.
At the technical level “no public interest” is ludicrous. Of course there will be some public interest in almost every incident. 20% of the population have a passionate interest in forcing the rest to change their child rearing beliefs. That 20% has made it illegal to smack.
There will of course be immense public interest in test cases, and passionate views that it is in the public interest to bring them. The more “inconsequential” the smack, the more deterrent impact a successful prosecution will have.
To disqualify any prosecution it should have said something like “no reasonable public interest” or “no useful purpose would be served that outweighed the public interest in avoiding prosecutions that bring the law in to contempt”.
And then there is the contempt shown for our constitutional traditions. It is fundamental to our law that it is not for the Police to decide what the law is, or ought to be. It is their job to uphold it.
Now the leaders of Parliament are telling the Police to ensure that the courts do not get to consider where the law’s boundaries lie. Here is Parliament cold-bloodedly passing law it does not want enforced.
Any wonder why our criminals think the law is a joke, and we have among the highest levels of violent crime in the Western world.
For years I was the only MP prepared to debate this issue publicly with Ms Bradford. I went to public meetings all over the land with her. She is good company.
But she has the ruthless Marxist view that the ends justify the means. She lied happily about the legal effect of the Bill, on the basis that it was in a good cause. Now she’s drawn the rest of Parliament into legal deceit.
A Friend in Wanganui says on 5 May 2007:
One thing to be remembered with respect to the degree of force –
“inconsequential” must be determined in the light of what is “in the public interest.” Note that the public does not determine what is in the public interest – the police do, then perhaps the courts might have a say. This Bill has been promoted on the basis that it is in the public interest for parliament to disregard the public’s conception of what that interest is – nanny state decides. Here’s the rub! The Police Commissioner is a political appointee – the Police (like CYFs) set their own criteria internally. Howard Broad might not like implements, but he readily admits that others in the Police may have different views so that there will be some diversity of application.
When Howard leaves, then what? If some feminist zealot police Prosecutor makes examples of parents – then what?
Friday, May 04, 2007
Back from the Principal on smacking http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/05/back-from-principal-on-smacking.html
I visited the principal of my children’s school this morning to discuss the issue of my youngest child’s class being asked by their teacher yesterday as to what happened to them at home if they were naughty.
The principal didn’t seem disturbed by this but he’s going to find out why the teacher asked. He didn’t indicate whether or not he thought it was appropriate or not, and it seems there is nothing that can be done to stop teachers asking this question of children.
The upshot is, any person can report any child to CYF if they feel a child is at risk of emotional or physical harm. There is nothing the principal can do if a teacher decides that smacking constitutes physical harm and decides to report it.
However, we also recognise that alongside the need to protect children’s safety and wellbeing, there is also a need to protect the subsidiarity of families, which means government should not interfere unnecessarily with decisions that families are able to make for themselves. Family subsidiarity should be respected unless a child’s safety is at risk. We do not see minor and infrequent acts of physical punishment as putting a child’s safety at risk.
I also asked when it comes to a conflict between our faith and the government, what takes precedence in a Catholic school. He said for him, the faith would, but he knows of a number of Catholic school principals that would most likely report parents for smacking.
There are also school programmes for keeping children safe, and he thinks it’s likely that smacking will be included in those programmes. That means, that school children will most likely be told that they are not to be smacked as this is harmful to them.
At this point, I’m not really sure what to do next, apart from waiting to see what the teacher’s reason for asking was.
5 May 2007 – Family Integrity #243 — This makes me ill
Gidday all,
This kind of thing makes me ill. The big sell-out. These folks will relax over a latte. Many of us will be in panic mode, stressed to the max with sleepless nights, wondering how we can live in a country that says it is illegal for us to correct our children.
Please continue to write furiously to the MPs and paper editors.
I have been reminded by the Timaru riding crop lady that the Police are required to report any incident of “family violence” that comes to their notice. Once the bill goes through, even the lightest, most reasonable force used to correct your child (which under the present S.59 is the ONLY LEGALLY JUSTIFIED force you may use with your child), will be classed as “family violence”. In addition, the Police are often FORCED by CYFS to prosecute, even when they don’t want to. That was the case with the Timaru lady. That was also the case with Don & Ann Eathorne in Karamea last year….CYFS forced the Police to prosecute an incident that happened a couple of years earlier…they were convicted of the most minor of smacks to an open hand with a wooden spoon, because the judge felt a message needed to be sent to the NZ public. And now this exemplary couple have a criminal record, preventing them from travel, from work in many areas, etc. A true miscarriage of justice.
4 May 2007 – Family Integrity #242 — PM wants to marginalise Christians
Dear Friends,
I need to add another quote to go with the last post, #241.
This is Helen Clark being interviewed by homosexuals and printed in the Express newspaper, 11-24 February 2004:
Q: Is the government worried about the level of homophobia shown by groups of the religious right like the Maxim Institute in New Zealand?
A: We legislated against hate crimes. You just have to keep working over a long period of time on several values in society that does not condone that sort of attitude. I understand that over a long period of time there has been a fundamentalist programme that runs on TV2 on a Sunday morning which is absolutely disgraceful. It’s a very small minority point of view and I think through continuing to set the tone of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, you just have to further marginalise such people. Hopefully one day nobody will think that way.
Here we have the Prime Minister saying it is an acceptable practise for the Government to marginalise certain people groups.
4 May 2007 – Family Integrity #241 — Remember who we’re dealing with and two reasons to fear
Dear Friends,
The question is: what do we do now that John Key and National appear to have completely surrendered the country to the radical feminist-Marxist agenda of Labour and the Greens by agreeing to an inconsequential amendment to let them get Bradford’s anti-parenting bill through?
Let’s just review a few quotes to bring into focus the nature of the people we are dealing with in parliament. And then we’ll review a few facts:
A Collection of Quotes from Key, Clark & Bradford
“I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary” — John Key, press release, 18 April 2007.
“I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate. I’m no supporter of these hard right religions.”
“Personally I have no problems with Civil Unions… there was an argument put forward that civil unions would undermine marriage, and I never believed that line….We have friends who are a gay couple bringing up children, I would support any gay or lesbian couple bringing up children, I would hope for them what I want for any children and that is for them to give the best parental instruction and love and attention that they can for the children that are in their care…..I don’t care what people’s sexual preferences are, It’s for them to determine that….as far as I am concerned, is their business and their business alone.”
Sexual ‘preferences?’ There’s that scary word beloved of fundamentalist preachers. Does Key believe that we glbt people exercise a choice over our sexuality? “No. I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behavior, personally I believe that is crap. The only way I can express that is that I am not gay and that is not a conscious decision I made, it’s just the way I feel. I assume that gay people have other feelings.”
(These three paragraphs are from a 3 December 2006 interview with John Key at: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/templates/Political.asp?articleid=1587&zoneid=3. I’d like to point out that paedophilia and necrophilia and bestiality are other sexual preferences and I’m sure they too “have other feelings”, John. So do you not care about those people’s sexual preferences either?)
“Marriage has a lot of inappropriate connotations. It carries associations with religion, belief etc. My personal interest is in a secular society and I think a civil unions bill is very important….” – Helen Clark – Express Magazine 11 February 2004
NZ Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark says the Government’s role is whatever the Government defines that role to be. – Dominion Post 4 March 2003. Spoken in reply to a question as to whether it was Government’s role to fund the next America’s Cup challenge to the tune of $5.6 million.
“[Remember] 2002, and Clark’s now infamous comment at the state banquet for the Queen that “New Zealand is now a secular country”, and grace would not be said at the meal.” – Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.
“I felt really compromised. I think legal marriage is unnecessary and I would not have formalised the relationship [with husband Peter Davis] except for going into Parliament. I have always railed against it privately.” — Helen Clark, Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.
Retired political studies lecturer Ruth Butterworth, a long time friend of Clark’s, is quoted in Brian Edwards PR-piece, Helen, remembering the black mood at the “wedding”.
“She was resistant up to the last minute. I mean, she was crying on the day. It was just so awful because it was so deeply against her principles.” — Investigate Magazine, Nov 2003.
Sue Bradford brought us: lowered drinking age and decriminalised prostitution. She tried to give us a less-dangerous classification for “P” and lowered penalties for child pornograpy. She is all for legalising marijuana and not requiring birth mothers to name the fathers on the birth certificates. She justifies this last item with the following words straight from Hansard of 1 March 2007 (see http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_03_01.htm) in a debate on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill:
“…If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father – whether they choose to or not.”
“Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby, which would probably be covered by the “undue distress” exemption, there are a
range of other situations where women may not wish to have the father of their child’s name registered.
“One is where the woman is in a same-sex relationship, wants her partner to share parental responsibilities, but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted
reproductive technology. Another is where the woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile, but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where the woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement financially or emotionally from another parent. These are all reasonable choices for women to want to make, and choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 proposed by this Bill, they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make.”
“… This aspect of the Bill is nothing short of draconian – it makes criminals out of women who wish to make choices to raise their children without the involvement of their biological father. ”
(It seems to me that Bradford’s ideology is so foreign and radical to anything average New Zealanders understand as normal and healthy that she is not to be taken seriously. Yet she and Clark are running the show and people like Key can’t help themselves from falling in behind.)
There are at least two aspects of this Bill which are to be feared:
Correction, deemed even today in law to be “justified” or “right”, is soon to be thoroughly condemned as wrong. Why is this? What’s the evil in “correction” that this bill is trying to “correct”?
In spite of the grand amendment to the re-write of Section 59, please note that whereas the old Section 59 said parents were “justified” — had done what is right and therefore could not be held guilty — in using reasonable force for the purpose of correcting their own children, in this Bill the use of any force for the purpose of correcting your own child (that is, not just smacking) is clearly and emphatically declared to be outside the law. It is referred to even in this wonderful amendment itself as an “offence”, even when it is inconsequential. The correction of children by parents is now legally condemned if one uses any force above the level of “inconsequential”.
So what is “inconsequential” force when used for correction? I would suggest it is force that has no consequences; that it failed to correct the child’s behaviour.
The debate has raged over smacking, and so the focus is on physical force, but the bill condemns simply “force”. Smacking is not mentioned in the re-write of Section 59, so someone looking to prosecute parents for “correcting” a child may consider any kind of force in any form. Until this is defined or limited to only physical force, what other kinds of force will be ruled illegal, and how many families will have to be destroyed by the justice system’s machinations in order to get those precedents and definitions. (Yesterday’s post quoted Police Commissioner Howard Broad saying that they will get there, using the courts and the Police Complaints Authority…an indication that it will take time and a number of families as fodder for the court’s grist mill).
Now force is at the bare minimum: to force the parent’s will upon that of the child. It can be physical. I would suggest it can also be moral force, appeals to tradition or one’s faith or religious or philosophical or ethical or cultural or ethnic practices, withdrawal of privileges, grounding, reasoning, striking a bargain, etc. These forms of force might be considered positive and reasonable and valid by most. But if a clever lawyer ever names any of these as a form of force that is more than inconsequential — that is, use of this form of force actually corrected the child — then surely that parent has committed an offence…the offence of correcting a child using force.
Until “correction” and “force” are defined in law, anything can happen.
(As an aside, other forms of force that most would consider negative and unhealthy include verbal scolding and character assassination and emotional manipulation, intimidation, threats, isolation, humiliation, etc., etc. One of these is more likely to be affirmed in a court of law as an illegal use of force for correction. Because it is not physical force, the door is then opened to specifically condemn also the positive and reasonable forms of non-physical force mentioned earlier, if they succeed in correcting children. It appears that with this bill, correcting children, no matter how it is done, will be forever after classed as a crime, one that merely awaits a legal precedent to be set by some anti-family, anti-parent lawyer testing such a prosecution of correction by non-physical use of force in court. It will happen one day.)
Having a reasonable doubt normally acquits people in court. This bill requires a court to convict people when a doubt exists.
It is obvious that it is “correction” that is being written into law as a criminal activity, not the use of “reasonable force”. “Reasonable force” was said by Bradford to hide all manner of severe beatings and abuse. But she did not remove the term “reasonable force” from the re-write. Instead it is now right there in subsection 1 of the Bill before Parliament, and is said to be justified when used to do all sorts of things to children, but not to correct them.
The really scary part of this bill is that subsection 2 condemns the correction of children and then subsection 3 requires that subsection 2 prevail over subsection 1. (The entire re-write is reprinted below.) So if a nosey neighbour accuses you of abusing your child and you end up in court defending yourself, if the court cannot determine, that is, has doubts about whether the force you used was for correction of offensive behaviour or for prevention of offensive behaviour, because they have a doubt, subsection 3 requires the court to make the corrective interpretation prevail over the preventative interpretation. And since the court is required to find that you used the force to correct your child, you will be convicted of child assault, worth as much as 2 years in jail (see Section 194a of the Crimes Act).
Re-written Section 59 — Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
So What Do We Do Now?
Same as before: lobby your MP furiously and every other MP as well.
Castigate John Key from one end to the other.
Demand that they define “correction”.
Ask if this forbidden “correction” is the same as “discipline” or “training” or “chastisement”.
Ask them if it is true that contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will now be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose of the force used?
Write these same questions to your local newspaper editors.
Ask these same questions on talk back radio.
Pray for God’s deliverance from this disaster.
Update your passports. Reactivate your Australian contacts.
3 May 2007 – Family Integrity #240 — National whipped its MPs!!!!!!!!!!
This is bizarre. Parliament is run by deranged madmen. Read this from Rodney Hyde http://www.rodneyhide.com/
Confusing times
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I arrived back in the country jetlagged and flew onto Wellington to learn that an historic peace had broken out with Helen Clark and John Key agreeing to a compromise on the smacking bill.
Good on John Key I thought. He’s taken the high ground and made a difference. That’s what I thought. Until I saw the amendment.
It makes no difference. Of course, the police have the discretion whether to prosecute. If anyone knows that, it’s Helen Clark!! This amendment just confirms it and then adds the confusing terms “inconsequential” and “public interest”.
Then John Key wips the National Party caucus to vote for it. So now Labour and National are voting for Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. The criticisms National made of the Bill still stand except now they are all voting for it.
But get this: I move Chester Borrows’ amendment last night because he wouldn’t. That defines clearly what is allowed and what is not. National voted against it, including Chester.
It must be the jet lag or something. I can’t figure it out!
Here is an interesting exchange with Chester:
I ask Mr Borrows whether it is true that the police have a decision not to prosecute.
Chester Borrows: Yes.
RODNEY HIDE: So this does nothing to Sue Bradford’s bill?
Chester Borrows: No.
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_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf
3 May 2007 – Family Integrity #239 — More on the Amendment and what they’re saying
Greetings all,
I posted a slight error yesterday about this new amendment being co-sponsored by Labour, Greens, National and UF.
Here is the full SOP (Supplementary Order Paper) which introduced it to the Parliamentary process:
It says that the amendment is actually going to become part of the new, re-written Section 59. Yesterday I said it would simply be part of the bill changing Section 59, but not part of the re-written Section 59 itself. I was in error.
So what difference does that make? I believe it makes no difference. Key and Clark say it makes all the difference in the world. Bradford says it makes a very slight difference.
To get one’s head around all this stuff, one needs to watch the two video clips listed here. Be quick, because they don’t stay on these websites for long.
Close up Wednesday 2 May 2007 with Simon Barnet, Helen Clark, John Key & Sue Bradford, under title, “People power or political brinkmanship.”
The CloseUp clip shows Key saying the bill was going to pass as it was and would criminalise every parent who ever smacked. “The Bill is [now] better than it was from our perspective. We don’t believe that good parents will be criminalised. But let me say this Mark: If once the Bill is passed, if good criminals…er…good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking their children, and I become Prime Minister of New Zealand, we will change the law.”
I am going to shamelessly focus on Key’s slip of the tongue, calling parents criminals. Simon Barnett says in the clip above that Parliament has treated the parents of NZ with complete contempt. And this is why. They hold us in contempt. Every thing Bradford and Clark and even Key says on this is that Section 59 had to be changed to make NZ a less violent place. Now remember: Section 59 is only even raised as a defence 1.4 times a year and over half of those are found guilty.
So what is their problem with Section 59? I thought it was the provision for parents to use “reasonable force” with their children and that Kiro and Bradford and the pro-repealers were all saying that severe beatings and abuse of all kind were hiding behind this label of “reasonable force”. But then we find that Bradford’s re-write of Section 59 DOES NOT get rid of the “reasonable force” provision.
So what IS their problem with Section 59? It is that Section 59 says it is RIGHT (“parents are justified”) to CORRECT their children. Bradford’s re-write of Section 59 emphatically says that for parents to CORRECT their children is WRONG. Her bill’s outstanding trait is that it creates a new crime: correction of children with the use of even the most reasonable level of force.
The police are instructed in the Bill (but Police Commissioner Howard says they always have it) to use discretion. But this discretion is to be used, if they want to use it…..they don’t have to…..when they come across “offenses” (parents using force to correct their children) which are “inconsequential”. Clark says a couple of times that the law should not and will not, because of this amendment, “concern itself with trifles”. They make it clear that any use of force that is not “inconsequential” is unacceptable violence.
At the original press conference to announce this amendment, a reporter asked Bradford if light smacking was now OK. Her response: “Not it’s not. Not at all.”
At this same press conference, Key said, “The Prime Minister and I put politics aside and let sanity prevail.” As I heard someone else say, “This Prime Minister NEVER puts politics aside.” Key went on to enumerate National’s three objectives in this: 1) That parents can have confidence they won’t be criminalised for “lightly smacking a child”; 2) police have clear guidelines; and 3) “I think it’s a very important step for New Zealand in becoming a safer and less violent community.”
They all agree on this: that Section 59, which says it is RIGHT for parents to CORRECT children, is what is causing NZ to be a violent society! Key is saying all us parents ARE already criminals. Bradford and Clark have been saying it over the past month or six weeks ever since Labour MP Russell Fairbrother circulated a bizarre opinion that smacking has been illegal for over 100 years.
The amendment will be subsection 4 of the new re-written Section 59, so it will look like this, barring any new amendments:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
Note that subsection 4, this new amendment by Key, Clark, etc., refers to “an offence involving the use of force against a child”. That is the offence of “correction”. It is not an offence to use “reasonable force” on a child to minimise harm, stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when the “reasonable force” is incidental to good care and parenting (subsections 1a through 1d). The offence in using ANY force with a child is when the purpose of using the force is correction (subsection 2). The amendment says the Police have the option, the luxury of turning a blind eye, if the force used for correction, which is a criminal offence according to subsection 2, “is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.” But they don’t have to ignore it, because subsection 2 does define it as a crime, regardless of how inconsequential it is.
John Key says that means light smacks will be ok. Bradford insists that light smacks are never ok. In the CloseUp clip, Bradford says, “The Police will still investigate, I hope, every report of assault on a child and that is as it should be.” She then said the amendment was “a direction to Police making it clear that Parliament is saying if the offense is totally inconsequential, that Parliament is not expecting that the Police should feel that they must prosecute.”
Light smacks that are inconsequential MIGHT be safe from prosecution, but may not be safe from investigation and reporting to CYFS, as Simon Barnett points out on the CloseUp clip. Once CYFS gets involved in a child investigation, life as you know it comes to an end. As talk-back radio has been saying: Police who do nothing about an investigation into an inconsequential incident with parents A & B will be hung if later on that same A & B severely abuse the same kid. So Police will investigate if it comes to their notice and will probably at minimum refer it to CYFS.
Light smacks that are inconsequential are, as every parent knows, inconsequential and ineffective and useless. The smack is delivered in the objective that it will be CONsequential, not INconsequential. That is, effective smacking for corrective purposes under this new bill will be as illegal as ever Bradford wanted it to be at the beginning. The only refuge parents may find, if they are accused and investigated for correcting a child using force, is to make out that their corrective discipline was possibly corrective, but in fact inconsequential; or that it was NOT corrective but instead designed to stop criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or that it was incidental to good care and parenting.
Yes, I believe correction is an essential part of good care and parenting. And it includes a lot more than light smacks. But it is about to become a heinous crime, one that can be prosecuted under the laws against assault and worth from 2 to 5 years in jail. Force used to correct a child is not just smacking. It includes grabbing my child by the arm or shoulders and marching him to the neighbour to apologise for throwing rocks through his garage window. It includes forcibly taking his piggy bank out of his hands and taking his money out of it to pay the neighbour for the damage done. It includes forcing him to sit at the table and write and re-write until it is done properly a formal letter of apology including an assurance that he won’t do such daft things again. And if it means he has to forego tea and dessert that night and any electronic entertainment or communication for a month to force him to do as I require, so be it.
I fielded a number of calls and emails today about people wanting to leave NZ, wondering what it’s like in various parts of Australia.
Let me also quote from the video clip above as Campbell Live interviewed Commissioner for Police Howard Broad:
Campbell: Is this “discretion” going to be applied differently in different parts of NZ?
Broad: Yes, it’s a human-made decision with 8,000 officers applying it up and down the country. “Reasonably confident that, subject to a small amount of variation, we’ll be able to work.”
Broad: “There is no mandatory exercise of the powers of the Police. Discretion always applies.”
Broad: “What the proposed legislation does is lower the threshhold around what is considered to be the level of force before a prosecution. I think it’s actually quite substantially reduced that. And that is going to be where the difficulty is for Police, finding that point. That’s where the difficulty will be. But we’ll find it, and we’ll be guided by the courts, we’ll be guided by our own experience; the Police Complaints authority might have a part to play, and so on.”
Campbell: Are the use of jug cords and riding crops out of the question now?
Broad: “Clearly in my view situations using implements like jug cords or practically any implement, I think, is now considered beyond what is acceptable. I think it’s been actually quite a useful exercise, really, because the country is coming to grips with the causes and the factors associated with violence. And it’s publicised and discussed, the use of force, in a whole range of circumstances. I think that’s been extremely valuable. I say again that this legislation has reduced the threshhold at which action will be taken. And I think people do have to come to grips with that now.”
Campbell: “So people who are accostomed to using things like wooden spoons or any kind of implements have to understand that the law has changed and they can no longer do that?”
Broad: “I think so and also we’ve got to be extremely careful in those moments when force is applied ‘where’ to a child. You know, hitting a child in the head for example; I don’t think that’s acceptable.”
Campbell: “But the sort of scaremongering that went on that any kind of smack, any kind of small slap on the wrist or bottom was going to be illegal is now dealt with by this use of the term ‘discretion’?”
Broad: “I think so, and the proposal in the legislation ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ makes it absolutely crystal clear that the Police are expected to apply that discretion for levels of force that are inconsequential. And that is a fairly clear message to the public, if it was ever needed, for the Police.”
Campbell: So my summary would be that you think this is about as good an outcome as we could have had?
Broad: I’m actually quite comfortable with where we are.
Now there are some scary things here. He says the threshhold for the use of force has been quite substantially reduced. He’s talking about force used to correct, not do the things listed in subsections 1a through 1d. It has been reduced to inconsequential before you MIGHT not be prosecuted should such a use of force come to the notice of police. And Broad says it will be tricky finding that point, but they’ll be guided by the courts and the complaints authority. That means it will require family after family to be systematically destroyed by court processes over giving a smack with a wooden spoon, regardless of what the child did, in order to set definitions and precedents.
Reasonable force is ok for stopping offensive behaviour (subsection 1c) but not for correcting the offensive behaviour. Where do you draw the line? What is it about wanting to correct bad behaviour into good that is so hated by Bradford? It is not clear if implements are allowed to be used in the purposes named in subsections 1a through 1d. I’ve writen to Bradford, Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission, Howard Broad of the Police Commission, Rajen Prasad of the Families Commission and several others about this, the definition of “correction” and other things back in April. Let’s see what they say.
As far as I can make out, politically, Labour was damaged big time and continuing to take many hits. They were bleeding all over the place, and deathly pale. If Key had stood back, they would have died at the polls and the next election. Instead, Key gives Clark a blood transfusion, saves her and tosses a lifeline to the Greens at the same time. In doing so he has secured the total demise of the National Party, caused them to be seen as Labourites dressed in Blue.
Parliament is sitting today from 2pm to 6pm and again from 7:30pm to 10pm. This link above is good during those times.
The understanding is that the final vote won’t happen today but will most likely now take place in 2 weeks, 16 May, and become law a month after the Governor General gets round to signing it.
Ms Bradford’s bill is now a private member’s bill.
The bill, which is going through a clause by clause debate in Parliament, comfortably passed its first real hurdle.
National MP Chester Borrows first series of amendments were not upheld with votes against the amendments of 63 to 58.
When debate resumes on the bill, MPs will debate Mr Borrows next amendment, which seeks to permit reasonable force, defined as a light smack with the hand with a trifling and transitory impact.
The bill, which removes the defence of using reasonable force to discipline a child for anyone accused of assault, has had New Zealanders split on its merits.
The proposed ‘anti-smacking’ bill has caused a lot of confusion. What do you understand to be the bill’s purpose?
To stop parents from smacking their children altogether 41%
To stop parents from physically abusing their children 14%
To make it easier for abusive parents to be prosecuted 10%
All of the above 24%
I’m still not sure 10%
2. Do you support an outright ban on smacking children?
Yes, I do 9%
No, I don’t 90%
Not sure 2%
3. http://www.stuff.co.nz/”>http://www.stuff.co.nz/
Q. Would you like to see Sue Bradford’s smacking bill watered down?
Results as at 3:00pm 13 March 2007
Yes 2121 votes, 55.9%
No 524 votes, 13.8%
The bill should be dumped altogether 1148 votes, 30.3%
4. http://nz.yahoo.com/
Q. Should light smacking still be legal when the new bill goes through?
Results as at 3:00pm Tuesday 13 March 2007
4497 votes since Mar 12 2007
Yes 93% 4166 votes
No 7% 302 votes
Undecided 1% 29 votes
5, http://www.younglabour.org.nz
This website was open to the public until 13 March then the whole website was pulled off the internet. It is now back but only members can go onto it. Should Section 59 be repealed?
Results at 1:55pm 13 March 2007
No 1789 60.2%
Yes 1182 39.8%
Number of Voters 2971
First Vote Monday, 05 March 2007 09:49
Last Vote Tuesday, 13 March 2007 01:55
6. http://www.nzherald.co.nz Should parents have the right to smack their children for discipline?
Result: 90% say yes
result under “more polls”
7. http://www.nzcpd.com/polls.htm Do you believe that the removal of section 59 will reduce child abuse in New Zealand?
4% YES
96% NO
Responses received: 2442
results under “Previous polls”
Occasional smack: and no big deal (1012 votes, 70.2%)
Occasional smack: I still really resent it. (56 votes, 3.9%)
Smacked hard: but I never think about it. (304 votes, 21.1%)
Smacked hard: and the trauma still there. (70 votes, 4.9%)
11. tv3 poll http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Polls/tabid/221/Default.aspx
National says it will change the smacking law if it doesn’t work. Are you confident that police will administer the law well and that ‘good parents’ won’t be criminalised?
Results as at 5:51 27 June 2007:
Yes 14%
No 76%
Not sure 10%
There are about another 8 – 10 polls showing similar results
A couple of new videos on YouTube.com. Please send to all on your mailing list to get the word out. Thanks.
A new video has Larry Baldock explaining where we are with the petition against Bradford’s Bill at the moment. The clip comes in three versions, fast and slow Broadband, and dialup 56k. See links below.
Petition against Bradfords Bill Larry Baldock Fast BB
2 May 2007 – Family Integrity #237 — Surrender by National
it is all over folks.
John Keys and Helen Clark have agreed to amend Bradford’s Bill with the following:
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
Bradford agrees with the amendment, because, as she just said on Michael Law’s radio show, it doesn’t change her bill in any way whatsoever.
Why is this true?
This amendment is simply adding this as an extra clause to the Bill. It is not changing the re-write of Section 59 which is another clause in the Bill. So, the clause will not pass into the Crimes Act. It is simply a bit of commentary in the Bill. And as Bradford just said on Law’s radio show, this is precisely what Police do now anyway.
And of course, parents who use reasonable force to correct their children do not use inconsequential force…..they use force that is going to have consequences….the consequence of present and future corrected behaviour. Police will have to consider this a criminal act.
And of course, CYFS is most likely still to be advised by police, even when the force is inconsequential, for the force is technically illegal. Here is where our greatest fear lies.
This is total and complete capitulation by National. They’ve surrendered completely.
May God have mercy on us all.
Here then, unless there is some miraculous event in Parliament today, is what Section 59 will look like :
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Correcting your children, you see in (2), is a criminal offense. And (3) says that if there is a doubt as to whether the force was for correction or for prevention, the correction interpretation must prevail.
Until now, juries convict the accused of a crime when no doubt about it exists, when it is beyond reasonable doubt. Now, if charged with the crime of using force to correct your child, the existence of doubt will legally require the jury to convict you of the crime.
This Bill is totalitarian in the way it thoroughly removes parental authority to determine the upbringing of their children, for they are unable to use force, even reasonable force, to back up their parental requirements and prohibitions. If Police could not use any force to back up state prohibitions, they would be reduced to making suggestions which we could safely ignore. Children will be able to safely ignore what parents say.
This Bill signals the tipping of NZ into the cauldron of totalitarianism in that the politicians, across all parties, have totally ignored the clear will of the populace.
Ring John Key’s office and tell National how stunned you are at their total surrender to Labour and the Greens.
A. I answered that what I smack for was for the 4 Ds – Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty, Destructiveness.
B. Then this is how we answered the last question:
Bradford has been shown to be a master of deceit, and this quote from her contains some classic lies about the situation in Europe. See Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention website, in English, at http://www.bra.se. Anyone who promotes prostitution, lowered drinking age, lower penalties for dangerous drug taking and child porn, lobbies to raise the status of sodomites in every conceivable way and to preserve for females the option, for whatever reason, not to have the responsible male named on the birth certificate, while doing nothing to stop the pre-meditated killing of 17,000 unborn humans every year should be in therapy, not in Parliament.
Sue Bradford is lying to the New Zealand Public. There are many articles about the fact that the smacking ban does not work in these countries. See articles like:
2. Dr. Bob Larzelere has shown that in Sweden, trends indicate sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against children under the age of seven (7). This frequency increased from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase. On February 28, 2007, Family First published a press release informing of a “14% Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban”. These are the latest figures from Sweden revealing that more children were abused in Sweden in 2006 compared with the 2005 figures, according to The Swedish Daily. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm.
4.Since 1978 – the year before the anti-smacking Bill gained force of law – until today, thousands of parents have been reported, accused, arrested by the police, detained, tried in courts of law and sentenced to fines or prison as a result of the said law. Christian Diesen, a professor in Sweden was quoted in an article in the NZ Herald saying: “Approximately 7000 cases [of beating children] are reported each year, but only 10 per cent lead to prosecution…” It would seem that Diesen would like to see more parents prosecuted. Anyway, ten per cent gives the grand total of 700 cases per annum multiplied by 27 years, makes 18 900 prosecutions for child abuse from 1979 until 2006. The number of prosecutions may seem small, but the 7 000 reports multiplied by 27 years brings the number of families that have been affected to 189 000. In unsubstantiated cases, suspected physical abuse of children is transformed into factual administrative and mental abuse of the children and their parents. http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Ruby%20Harrold-Claesson
5. Ruby Harrold-Claesson says “I have been criticised for saying that Swedish children are badly behaved. Well, I am not the only one who finds that Swedish children are badly behaved. See for eg Roger Lord’s article “The children are embarrassing Sweden” http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_children_are_embarrassing_sweden.htm
7. To normal thinking people, a well-behaved child is a joy to its parents, friends and the community at large; a badly behaved child is an abomination. The Daily Mail, March 13, 2007, has published the article, “The terror aged ten”, about the 10-yr old boy who drinks, smokes pot, steals and terrorises his neighbourhood. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441819&in_page_id=1770
Please make sure you listen to this Youtube movie.
To finish – Ruby again says “I am convinced that New Zealand has enough intelligent, level-headed politicians so they will not want their fellow citizens to have to make the same mistakes that Sweden has made. Bradford’s Bill is not being progressive; it is being destructive and repressive. The French reporter, Jean-Francis Held, wrote the article “Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!” http://www.nkmr.org/english/smacking_those_swedes_must_be_crazy.htm
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/
The following came from David Farrars blog (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/) 26 April:
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
This is interesting political sleight of hand. It is what Bradford has been doing all along.
Good on ya, Key! He wants to dump the parts of Bradford’s Bill that will criminalise parents for correcting their children: subsections 59(2) and 59(3), which read: “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction. (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).”
And he is going to replace them with the clause at the bottom that justifies “lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties” as long as the smack is “minor and inconsequential” and then he gives a nod to Section 3.
Now, Section 3 is in the version of Bradford’s Bill that is currently before Parliament. It says, “3 Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act 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.” So the Act says it is meant to abolish the use of parental force for correction. But if subsections 59(2) and 59(3) get removed and replaced by Key’s amendment, there will be noting actually written in the statute books that abolishes the use of parental force for correction, even though there is something in the Act which says that’s why it’s there!!
And Key’s amendment doesn’t ban the use of implements as Borrow’s amendment does. Please note also that Bradford’s Bill as it is does not ban the use of implements either.
This amendment by Key, if adopted, will have the effect of more closely maintaining the status quo. Bradford’s bill as it is has the effect of widening the use of parental force with children quite a bit more than the present Section 59 obviously allows. That is, Bradford’s Bill appears to extend the justifiable use of force with children beyond what the original Section 59 does, except that it criminalises correction. Key’s amendment will leave Bradford’s extensions to the use of force in place and also remove the criminalising of correction.
26 April 2007 – Family Integrity #233 — No smack compromise for Key and Bradford
No smack compromise for Key and Bradford
NZPA | Wednesday, 25 April 2007
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4038067a11.html
National Party leader John Key and the Green’s Sue Bradford have failed to agree on a compromise over her controversial bill to change the law on smacking.
They met for an hour in Parliament today for talks Ms Bradford described as “genuine and friendly” but did not find a way to overcome National’s strong opposition to the bill.
The bill’s future did not depend on the meeting because there are 63 votes behind it, enough for it to be passed into law, but it has divided Parliament and is causing bitter debates.
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence that allows “reasonable force” to be used to correct children.
Opponents, including National, say that means even the lightest smack would be a criminal offence.
Supporters say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and the defence is allowing people to get away with savagely beating children.
Ms Bradford said Mr Key proposed an amendment to the bill at their meeting which would insert a clause stating parents were justified in lightly smacking a child, if the smacking was minor and inconsequential.
It is similar to an amendment already proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, although the wording is different.
Ms Bradford said it was not acceptable, because it would legitimise violence against a child.
Mr Key initiated today’s meeting and Ms Bradford said she believed he had made a genuine attempt to cut through the problems National has with the bill.
“I think Mr Key does want to reduce the level of violence against children. . .I think he tried really hard to come up with something,” she said.
Mr Key was due to hold a press conference later today. A spokesman said the meeting had been cordial “but there was no outcome”.
24 April 2007 – Family Integrity #232 – MASS GATHERING @ PARLIAMENT TO OPPOSE ANTI SMACKING BILL
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, ‘we do so under threat.’ In response to Mr Keast’s comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: “The law is the law.’ Now lets take the anti smacking bill. If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, ‘the law is the law!’ Government’s planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week – Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
23 April 2007 – Family Integrity #231 — Smack down the middle
Greetings,
Well, the Show on TV last night:
Sunday Night 7.30pm
Smack down the Middle
DID NOT, in fact, deal with the famous “hosepipe” case the repeal lobby bring up time and again. It dealt with a totally unknown case that is unknown because it never made it to court but was tossed out by a couple of Taranaki JPs who decided it was not worth prosecuting.
Just to point out a few things: the father of the boy was all upset. Well, for crying out loud, who was it sent his own son away because he could no longer handle him? Did he not choose where the boy got sent? Did he not check out what kind of treatment the boy would get there?
The boy was asked if he’d ever smack his own future children. “No, unless they….” There you have it.
The father said, in spite of all this, he DID NOT support Bradford’s Bill.
I must also add that the smack the uncle administered was controlled, not in anger, measured and explained to the boy and the boy apparently submitted to it.
In virtually ALL the discussions about smacking, parents are portrayed as lashing out in frustration, anger, having come to the end of their tether. The wee film clips of parents smacking children with their hands are all of this variety. THis is not controlled, useful, purposeful corporal correction. This is what most would call “light smacks” that they don’t want to see banned. It is the measured strokes with a wooden spoon or cane that are, in fact, most judicial, helpful, purposeful, effective, are explained to the child, are submitted to by the child, but which are most likely to be banned because they have not entered into the debate.
22 April 2007 – Family Integrity #229 — hosepipe case on TV 1 tonight
Sorry about late notice: I only just found out:
an extensive review of the “hosepipe” case of discipline the repeal lobby constantly bring up is on as part of the Sunday Documentary programme, 7:30 tonight on TV 1. I don’t know what the over all spin to it will be, but it is one of the three the repeal lobby bring up all the time (the other two being the Timaru riding crop case and the Hawkes Bay “plank of wood” case, which is interesting because the “plank” was 2cm by 30cm, the size of a standard wooden spoon and the judge acquitted the parent as soon as he heard the facts without a Section 59 defense even being raised!!)
Regards
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
Our Home….Our Castle
21 April 2007 – Family Integrity #228 — When God Gets Kicked Out
This wee (G rated) video clip pretty well explains why we’re in the
state we’re in.
21 April 2007 – Family Integrity #227 — Third Feilding Protest Rally
Diane Woodward is organising the third rally in Feilding to protest
against the passage of Bradford’s Bill to re-write Section 59.
This one is to draw attention to the meeting between National’s John Key
and Green’s Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April.
Meet at the Feilding Clock Tower at 12 Noon Monday 23 April, two days
before ANZAC Day.
Regards,
Craig & Barbara Smith
20 April 2007 – Family Integrity #226 — Questions for Key & Bradford
Greetings,
Well, it appears John Key of National and Bradford are meeting on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford’s Bill to usurp parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable force to correct your own children.
To help us know what to do, I’ve pasted below the present Section 59 as well as the re-write of Section 59 that the present Parliament is considering as a replacement for the presnet Section 59.
Bombard Key and Bradford with the following requests, Numbered “One” through “Five”. (Contact details for both below).
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford’s first and foremost piece of propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible, understood by each succeeding generation according to the social attitudes of the times, not confused by too many undefined and unusual words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse: household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships, welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent’s use of force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate, get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries of 12 of her peers determined to be “reasonable force.” We now see, from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that it is not the “reasonable force” to which Bradford objects, for it is still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct their own children.
Section 59 doesn’t promote abuse and violence toward children: it is one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it only allows parents to use “reasonable force” and then only “by way of correction”. When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned parents in particular, call this for what it is — telling lies — and do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
Ask the following of Key and Bradford”
Number One: A. Define “Correction” as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of “Correction” include “discipline”?
C. Does it include “training”?
D. Does it include “chastisement”?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use “reasonable force in the circumstances” to discipline, train or chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford’s definition of “correction” obviously fall outside of what most parents would say is “incidental to good care and parenting”? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what constitutes “good care and parenting”?
Number Two: A. Does the “reasonable force in the circumstances” of Sub-Sections 1a through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three: A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the “reasonable force in the circumstances” idea as it exists both in the present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using “reasonable force” when it is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in Bradford’s thinking that it must be legislated against when this same “reasonable force” can be used in the multitude of other circumstances allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: “As long as the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child’s act of harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force is used on the child AFTER the child’s act of harm or crime or disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms of correction and is therefore illegal.”
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view “correction” (and “discipline” and “training” and “chastisement”) of children as integral parts of “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting”? How does Bradford intend for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four:
Bradford has consistently said that the “reasonable force for the purpose of correction” provision of the current Section 59 has allowed violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the “reasonable force” provision in any way except to forbid it for the purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely the same; the only difference is that “correction” is now forbidden, but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five: A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether a parent’s use of force was preventative or corrective that the corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing apples from the neighbour’s tree and slap his hand as he picks another one so that he doen’t actually detach it, and confesses he was stealing without the neighbour’s permission, this is justified by Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the neighbour’s, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective, Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified and I’d be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour’s and forcing him to give the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he didn’t was not going to do either, I said he’d be banned from any TV, Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for $3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I required of him in front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of this. During the next week there were four instances where I had physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to correct my son’s actions and their downstream implications, the force I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2, is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today: Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and…every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59: Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Contact details for John Key:
Email John Key: john.key@national.org.nz
Email John Key’s Parliamentary secretary, Emma Holmes: emma.holmes@parliament.govt.nz
Email John Key’s electorate assistant, Mel macDonald: mel@johnkey.mp.net.nz
Phone (Parliament): 04-471-9307
Fax (Parliament): 04-473-3689
Phone (Helensville electorate): 09-412-2496
Surface Mail: John Key, Leader of the Opposition – Room 3.014 – Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Electorate office: 265 State Highway 16, Kumeu, Helensville, Auckland
Contact details for Sue Bradford:
Parliamentary Contacts:
Email: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
Phone: 04-470 6720
Fax: 04-472 6003
Freepost Parliament
PO Box 18,888, Wellington.
Green Party Office Contacts:
308 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland
P O Box 1553, Shortland Street, Auckland socialjustice@greens.org.nz
ph. (09) 361 6202
Fax (09) 361 5926
18 April 2007 – Family Integrity #224 — World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00208.htm
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
17 APRIL 2007
World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ
Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.
Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow’s (which substantially lowers the definition of what is ‘reasonable’ without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.
Dr Larzelere has been one of the world’s foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years – including:
*One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ’s s59 of Canada’s Criminal Code. (The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own country!)
*Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment – American Psychological Association.
*One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment – co-sponsored by American Academy of Pediatrics.
His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:
1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?
2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?
3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?
He has written over 70 research papers on this topic including :
*Comparing child outcomes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics : A meta-analysis.
*Sweden’s Smacking Ban: More harm than good . (Refutes research presented by Joan Durrant which has been used as evidence for repealing s59 by NZ’s Children’s Commissioner, UNICEF, Barnados, Plunket and other groups supporting repeal.) .
*Children and Violence in the Family: Scientific Contributions – A Submission to the UN Global Study on Children and Violence
He is also a Member of the following professional organisations : American Psychological Association
APA Task Force on Corporal Punishment
Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Association for Psychological Science
And the National Council on Family Relations
17 April 2007 – Family Integrity #223 — Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases
Greetings all,
Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.
The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the horse crop as their “poster girl” to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be: because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently “let off” by the courts when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.
This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.
First, the pro-repeal lobby (Bradford and her mates) only ever look at the actions of the parents toward the child: in this case, the mum gave the boy six of the best with an 18 inch bamboo pot-plant stake and later two or three strokes with the riding crop. They do not look at the wider context of family history, events leading to the corrective action, the results, etc. (The jury did…that’s why she was acquitted so quickly.) We all would be horrified to hear of a parent striking a child in this way FOR NO REASON. So Bradford and Kiro and Clark and Edridge et al all play on this and always completely ignore the context of the disciplinary actions. One must suppose that to them, whatever the child has done can in no way justify a disciplinary smack, not ever, not for any reason, no matter how light the smack, no matter how horrible and damaging the child’s actions, no matter how reasonable the force used. This is precisely the tact taken by the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child in a comment on this issue they published in June last year (see http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo). This is a modern philosophy that has very little support or currency among parents anywhere in the world. That is certainly what Labour and the Greens are finding out here: 85% of Kiwis do not agree with a ban on smacking children for corrective purposes as part of the parenting tool kit.
Second, if the Swedish experiment is any indication as to why this philosophy is pushed so vehemently by virtually ALL government departments and virtually ALL so-called child and family welfare groups (virtually ALL of whom are also heavily funded by the state), it is because this philosophy CAUSES family dysfunction. As family dysfunction increases, so does social dysfunction. A chorus goes up, “Why doesn’t somebody DO something?” Up step the state agencies and those groups funded by the state: social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers plus all their secretaries and office staff have vested interests in seeing the dysfunction continue and increase, for it means more money for them. Such bureaucracies ALWAYS tend to grow, for their focus very quickly becomes one of self-preservation rather than working themselves out of a job by finding permanent solutions to the social problems they were supposedly set up to solve.
Third, Bradford and her mates are strongly implying that they think the juries in such trials, 12 of their peers, are thick as bricks or somehow otherwise intellectually deficient and unable to tell the difference between “reasonable force to correct” and “abuse”. Or they are simply saying they don’t like the decision made by the juries. These things are implied, but what Bradford and co are really trying to do is impose their own philosophy on everyone else by saying that juries should not have to decide such things, that the law should always clearly rule any use of force, regardless of how light or reasonable, outside the law if that force is used for the purpose of correction. What Bradford has never told us is why she so hates the perfectly natural idea, one practised for thousands of years, of parents correcting their children.
Fourth, the one group solidly against this bill is parents. Contrary to what Bradford and Kiro claim, parents are not clamouring for the “right” to beat their children…how ridiculous can you get, Bradford. Parents are proclaiming that they have natural duties and responsibilities toward their children and resent the state – especially a radically feminist and childless Prime Minister and an even more radically feminist Sue Bradford of the highly dysfunctional lifestyle track record – parents resent the state and thoroughly unqualified people like Clark and Bradford interposing themselves between parents and their children claiming they have to protect the child’s rights from being denied and trampled on by the parents.
This denigration and bullying of parents by the state has to stop. Only parents will ever love and be as committed to their children as they routinely are…certainly Clark and Bradford and state social workers have little to offer children in the areas of love and commitment. Parents also have most to lose by this legislation: their own children, their own family harmony and peace, their own authority within their own families and over their own children to correct, train and discipline using any degree of reasonable force. This Bill is clear evidence of the state claiming for itself the posterity of us all, our children, and wanting the best shot at determining the future by indoctrinating our children in its schools and allowing only its agents (police and social workers), not the parents, to force them to behave in certain ways approved by the state.
The Present Debate
I’ve cut and pasted three items below.
The first is a blog from July last year revealing details of a pending court case which will not happen until November 2007 apparently. This involves the Timaru riding crop lady and an older son in a separate incident in which she is again being charged with assault.
The second item is a news story from last Friday about this very court case. Note how different the two accounts are. The first apparently is based on a chat with the Timaru lady herself, the second is based on the testimony of the son.
The third item is one blogger’s go at knitting the two together….and this is the scary part: it looks as if the Police and the Justice System are being manipulated by CYFS and maybe the Labour-led Government for the purely pragmatic ends of achieving their political social-engineering agenda. Truth and justice are quite possibly being trampled upon for the higher “good” that our “ever-so-wise” and “benevolent” leaders in Parliament have determined we need, even though we are apparently too thick to see it for ourselves.
There is clearly something going on with this Bill, for Labour has revealed that they are particularly committed to it and prepared to take a lot of very damaging hits (sustained criticism from media, disapproval of voters, the embarrassment of trying to push it through urgency and then trying – and failing – to make it a Government Bill) if only they can secure its passage into law.
And here is where the debate has gone off topic: smacking is a peripheral issue. This bill will criminalise parents using reasonable force – any force – to correct their children, thus prohibiting the most basic expression of their authority: the use of reasonable force. If you have no ability to use force, you have no authority, for you cannot enforce anything. Police and the courts would be reduced to making suggestions only if they could not use force (arrest, fines, imprisonment) to enforce the laws. The use of force is basic and inseparable from authority.
In addition, since the word “correct” is not defined in NZ law, it can be made to mean a huge range of things including any attempt by parents to train or discipline or improve or coach their children. Why is Bradford so vehemently against parents doing such things? And forbidding the use of any reasonable force is not just a ban on smacking…it is totally illogical to ban what is reasonable, and since “reasonable force” is also undefined in law, it can surely apply to any effort by the parents to impose, force, their will upon the child, however they might attempt to do this: time out, restrain, threaten, withhold affection or privileges, grounding, argue, yell and scream, humiliate, emotionally manipulate, negotiate, demand, appeal to conscience or religion or tradition or culture, etc. This effectively forbids any imposition of parental requirements or prohibitions upon children, unless one of two things can be established: the role of parents is to impose their best set of standards and attitudes and understandings upon their children; or the role of parents is to merely care for their children’s physical needs and impose as little moral guidance upon them as possible unless the children have agreed or have given their permission.
Bradford’s Bill appears to be totally committed to that second option. This is precisely what Bradford and Clark mean when they talk about children being given the same rights as adults. Certainly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) is pushing this idea of children being considered as individuals separate from their families, with their own rights which will be proclaimed, defined and defended by the state against those who are most likely to deny the child those rights: the child’s parents.
Conclusion
Anyway, please do not make any judgements about the latest media and blog-land revelations and discussions of the Timaru riding crop lady’s situation: we may well not have the full facts until the end of the year, after the trial. But we will get the facts; and they already promise to be a lot more complicated and involved than we’re likely to read in the media’s sensationalised pulp.
Please also do not assume that we or anyone else is holding the Timaru lady up as a sterling example for us all to follow, encouraging us all to go out and buy a riding crop to have handy. I know she would not wish her life’s story and family context on to anyone else. But do recall that in the original riding crop court case, the jury unanimously acquitted her within one hour of deliberation without her or any other witness saying one word in her defense: the prosecution did all the talking! Many people are striving to clarify the facts of this case (facts that Bradford, Murry Edridge of Barnardos, Kiro, Pillay and others steadfastly and creatively obscure rather than elucidate). They strive to make the facts clear because they feel she is being unfairly, maliciously and unjustly caricatured by the repeal lobby for their own political agendas, and not for the good of her, her family or the many other families whose peace and security and integrity will most definitely be threatened by Bradford’s Bill. And the press demonise her and misreport the facts for the low-life purpose of creating sensational headlines to artificially boost sales.
And don’t forget that the real issue is the state usurping from parents their natural authority over their own children. This will of necessity deliver to the state and its agents the only legal authority to correct children by using any degree of force, these state agents being the police, social workers and to a lesser degree, school teachers. (Though have you heard that in the UK, school teachers have re-gained the authority to use force with children not just in the classroom, but on the streets as well? It is a very logical step in the totalitarian agenda to gain complete control over “our” children since they are increasingly considered to be “the nation’s” children).
post has been updated 6pm
The woman who was acquitted in court of physically disciplining her 12-year-old son with a riding crop was visited by her six-foot 16-year old son in January. He kicked his stepfather in the head and broke his mothers nose. The last time the mothers nose was boken was when she was assaulted by an ex-husband who was charged with assault. However the police have not laid assault charges against the boy, despite his parents pressing for this.
The mother had access rights after the son was told to live with his father because she was deemed an unsafe parent by Child, Youth and Family, because she disciplined the younger one with a riding crop and a cane.
But this older son is a brat. Since living with his father he has had free access to alcohol and party pills and, according to his mother, has been breaking into cars and has appeared before the youth court on 13 charges.
As well as breaking his mothers nose, and kicking his stepfather in the head with his size 15 shoes (his stepfather has a serious head injury, remember) he repeatedly spat at them both while travelling with them in the car. The stepfather had to physically restrain the boy, and pull him off his mother. He was punching her and repeatedly calling her a f…….. arsehole, f….. whore, and a few other things. So she physically disciplined him and his stepfather tied his feet together to stop him from kicking him in the head again, before calling the police, who handcuffed the swearing boy and took him away.
Now, this mother along with her husband is facing an assault charge laid last month after the boy went to CYFS the following week. That is why it is now in the media. Perhaps CYFS, or its supporters, has released information on the case.
More sadly, CYFS Dunedin manager Peter Guest has now stopped the younger sons unsupervised access to his mum specifically because of the charges. He did this just two days before the holidays, without even telling the boy. The boy was going to stay with his mum over the holidays next week. Instead he found out from his mother that he is to stay with his grandmother, who was the approved CYFS caregiver that physically disciplined the boy and gave him Risperdal and Ritalin.
Guest is also trying to take the woman’s daughter away from her again. The mother has complained to the police and laid charges of assault against her son but has been told that she has to prove that she was assaulted before the police would do anything. This is despite the fact that CYFS did not have to prove charges against the parent, and that case is before the courts.
Perhaps the ACC claim form for the broken nose may be proof.
Anyone with half a brain can now find out this woman’s name through the media,as one paper has named her on the assault charge and then linkedthe two cases together on anohter report – but her name is permanently suppressed by the courts. For obvious reasons I have not provided links to the papers concerned.
Do you think the older boy should be charged with assault?
Item Two
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a10.html Horsewhip case mum accused of new attack
The Timaru Herald | Friday, 13 April 2007
The woman acquitted of assaulting her son with a cane and horsewhip, in a case cited as a justification for the anti-smacking bill, is to face trial on charges of assaulting another of her sons.
The woman and her husband appeared in Timaru District Court yesterday. After depositions, the man pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure. His wife pleaded not guilty to three charges of assault and one of assault with intent to injure.
Justices of the peace Kevin Dey and Margaret Cosgrove remanded the pair on bail to April 30 for the setting of a trial date.
In May 2005 a Timaru jury found the woman not guilty of two charges of assaulting a son, then aged under 14. She admitted giving him “six of the best” with a cane for misbehaving at school, and striking him three to four times with a horsewhip after an incident in which he waved a baseball bat at her partner.
Yesterday, her teenage son told the court he was punched, kicked and hog-tied by his stepfather after he agreed he had no respect for him.
All the charges arose out of a journey the three made in January last year. The night before the trip, it had been agreed they would leave at 9.30am, but the following morning the man was shouting and swearing because he considered they were running late, even though they were on the road at 9.15.
The man swore at the boy frequently and the boy responded the same way. At one stage his mother suggested he had no respect for the man. When he agreed he did not, he said his mother slapped and punched him in the face at least three times.
A few minutes later, he punched his mother once on the temple. The man stopped the vehicle and got out. The boy got out too, and started walking away. The man punched him with a closed fist. The boy was also kicked in the chest and kidneys.
The man told his wife to get some tape from the vehicle. He bound the boy’s arms and taped them to his leg.
The man told his wife to call the police. Instead, she suggested they take the boy to Geraldine police station. It was closed, so they decided to drive to the Timaru station.
The boy managed to call his birth father on his cellphone, but his mother grabbed the phone.
His mouth was filling with blood from his bleeding nose. He spat it out, further angering his stepfather.
The vehicle stopped and the boy ran into the road, in front of a vehicle driven by Geraldine man Colin Hobbs. Mr Hobbs told the court the boy’s arms were tied together. There was blood around his nose and mouth.
Mr Hobbs saw the man kick the boy two or three times and then grab him by the scruff of the neck, pulling him toward the vehicle, and put both his knees into the boy’s ribcage.
“He was putting everything into it,” he said. The woman did nothing to stop the assault.
When Senior Constable Graeme Walker arrived at the scene, all three family members were visibly upset. In an attempt to defuse the situation, he took the boy home and sent the couple on their way.
NB this post has been updated
As some people are expecting me to write about the riding crop mum of Timaru (and I wish people would stick to the facts and desist from calling it a horse whip), who was back in court on assault charges, I may as well.
As readers will know, I was a aware of the charges, in fact I blogged about them in July last year. That’s how long it has taken to come to court. Public Address blogger Russell Brown criticises my earlier post:
the account of the third-party witness, who has no reason to lie, directly contradicts the account relayed by Dave Crampton on some key points. Hopefully he’ll now stop depicting these people as victims of their terrible children and think a bit harder about the violence in this family.
Actually, the account of the witness doesn’t contradict my key points. Thats because the witness didn’t witness the woman assaulting the boy. Neither did he witness the boy punching his mother in the face and breaking her nose at the start of this whole sorry episode. He witnessed the father assaulting the boy, and that father pleaded guilty to assault, as he should.
What Russell Brown hasn’t mentioned is the following, much is (apparently) in the summary of facts but not in the media report he relies on: The teenager (aged 16 or 17) was on an access visit. He punched his mother in the face and broke her nose prior to all this happening, resulting in his mother getting ACC. He was was charged with assault but Police decided not to pursue it and let him off with a formal warning, reasons of which are suppressed. Charges were laid against the mother but police withdrew the charges when they found out what her son had done, but the crown relaid them after what was most probably political and CYF pressures after the boy got his warning.
Furthermore, the man who witnessed the stepfather’s assault on the boy has said that the woman didn’t exactly do anything to stop the assault – but would you if your nose had just been broken? Russell has criticised the woman, alleging that she is a bad parent for not doing anything to stop the beating, even questioning why she did not call out for her partner to stop. [This has since been refuted in comments by the woman herself].
Russell has criticised the actions of both parents, but not the teenager. Why? I don`t condone the actions of the stepfather either, but if Russell’s son was in the care of a former partner or CYFs and came home on an access visit, broke his nose, spat blood in his face, assaulted his partner, kicked him and swore at him, what would he do – give him a hug and play this http://www.amplifier.co.nz/video/17174/welcome_home.html on his stereo?
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 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
11 April 2007 – Family Integrity #220 — Sweden’s overall reported crime has increased dramatically
Here is a Brief Summary from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention website:
The number of reported crimes has increased for the majority of offence types during the period 1975-2004. Exceptions to this include amongst others fraud offences and burglaries, including residential break-ins. The trend over the past ten years reflects an increase in reported violent and sexual offences, whereas the number of reported theft offences is more or less the same as it was ten years ago.
The number of reported crimes against life and health, 1975-2004.
The largest proportion of reported violent crime is comprised of assault offences. A total of just under 67,100 such offences were reported in 2004. The number of reported assaults against both children and adults has increased since 1975, and today stands at three times the level reported at that time.
Criminality over time
Since 1950, overall reported criminality in Sweden has increased dramatically.
Various factors have contributed to this increase in the number of reported crimes in the post-war years. The primary explanation is the improvement in living conditions, which has resulted in greater access to goods that are prone to being stolen, in combination with reduced social control between people.
1950-1990
Up until 1964, there was a gentle increase in the total number of reported crimes. The period between 1965 and 1980 is characterised by a greater rate of increase and by major variations between different years. In 1970 just over 656,000 crimes were reported, while in 1980 the number of reported crimes reached around 928,000.
The period between 1980 and the beginning of the 1990s is characterised by an even greater rate of increase. On average, the number of reported crimes increased by 31,000 every year. Almost 1,219,000 crimes were reported in 1990.
1990 onwards
The number of reported crimes remained relatively constant during the 1990s, with slight increases and decreases in certain years. Over the past ten years, the number of violent crimes reported to the police (chapter 3 of Criminal Code) has increased by 35 percent (from 56,574 reported crimes in 1996 to 76,118 in 2005).
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 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
11 April 2007 – Family Integrity #219 — Sweden’s Battered Women
Support centre BEDA is a Non Governmental Organisation and a member of ROKS, The National Organisation for Battered Women Shelters in Sweden. The association is for women who have been subjected to incest or other forms of sexual abuse. The activity is based on self-help, woman to woman.
Beaten Lady
The first large investigation about men’s violence against women in Sweden was published in May 2001. The research was commissioned by the government and conducted by Eva Lundgren, professor of Sociology and by Gun Heimer, director of the National Women Centre in Uppsala.
Some facts in summery:
* Almost half of the women, 46%, have been exposed to violence by a man at some point after the age of 15.
* More than half the women, 56%, have been sexually harassed.
*Violence and/or sexual harassment are something nearly 7 of 10 Swedish women, 67% have experienced.
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
Scoop Image by Kevin List
<http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0705/ed3e8526741d5b9efb3f.jpeg>
Wednesday morning the media and assorted onlookers were treated to the rare sight of a joint press conference involving both the Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Leader of the Opposition John Key. The reason behind this unlikely podium sharing was that Mr Key was announcing he would now be supporting Green MP Sue Bradford’s Bill… More
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0705/S00063.htm> >>
Wednesday May 2 http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/497100/1094113
Related Video
Close Up: Smacking compromise (15:23)
Close Up: Smacking feedback (01:08)
Click on link above to see these two sections of Close up
People Power or Political Brinkmanship?
After feeling the blow torch of public opinion a compromise appears to have been found over Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill to repeal Section 59 – known as the anti-smacking bill. The reaction around the country has been fierce. Even those who supported the intent were angry at the possibility parents would become criminals even for lightly smacking their children. Whether or not that was likely was clearly becoming a political problem. Our show last night drew around 600 emails and thousands of responses to our online questionnaire. But today National leader John Key joined forces with Prime Minister Helen Clark to announce an amendment to the bill, that should see it passed with the support of all parties.
The amendment reads: “To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”
Today Corinne Ambler hit the streets of Wellington to talk to the masses. Then in the studio Mark Sainsbury talked to PM Helen Clark, National leader John Key, Green MP Sue Bradford and father of four Simon Barnett.
Police and child welfare agencies welcomed the clause inserted into the child-discipline bill yesterday, while some parents still decried being “criminalised”.
The clause gives police the discretion to not prosecute parents for offences “so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding”.
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said the clause represented “MMP at its finest”.
“It ensures an important element of policing is retained – the ability to use discretion. What front-line police had feared was that they would have no choice but to arrest people, but now it empowers the people who should have the power, and that is senior sergeants.”
O’Connor said the law was the only one he could think of that enshrined discretion which until now had been a tacit understanding.
Christchurch radio personality and father of four Simon Barnett said the law was now more confusing than ever.
“Police will have to be judge and jury and make a decision on the spot. I feel this is going to make it extremely tough for them.”
Barnett said he thought officers would “err on the side of caution” in the event that a case not acted upon turned serious. “I think John Key’s intentions were good but I think parents will feel let down by him.”
3 May 2007 – nzherald – The Smacking Bill: Amendment passes by landslide – only three MPs vote no
Email this storyPrint this story 5:00AM Thursday May 03, 2007
The amendment brokered by Prime Minister Helen Clark and National’s leader John Key that ended the battle over the bill to amend the law on smacking was passed by Parliament last night on a vote of 117-3.
Act’s two MPs, Rodney Hide and Heather Roy, and Independent MP Taito Phillip Field voted against it.
Mr Hide said the amendment saying the police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints that they considered to be “inconsequential” made no difference at all to the bill.
“It just says the police don’t have to prosecute. They don’t have to prosecute without the amendment,” he said. “We’re not making any law, we’re leaving it up to the police to decide what it is.”
Mr Hide said Helen Clark had cleverly worked out an amendment which meant nothing but had ended National’s opposition to the bill.
“The entire National Party has been rolled. I congratulate Helen Clark for a great sleight of hand and emerging from it unscathed.”
Mr Field was not in the debating chamber when the vote was taken. His vote was cast by proxy.
United Future leader Peter Dunne, who introduced the amendment, said the cross-party support was extraordinarily significant and a good day for Parliament.
“There has always been this concern … that good parents were going to be put at risk … were going to have the police banging down the door, [and] were going to be criminalised by this bill.”
The bill’s promoter, Green MP Sue Bradford, said she could happily back Mr Dunne’s amendment as it did not define the nature and level of force people could legitimately use against their children.
Parliament also accepted, by 116 votes to four, an amendment that commits the Government to reviewing the law two years after it comes into force.
The amendment was introduced by Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope several weeks ago, when the Government was trying to ease public concern about the bill.
3 May 2007 – The Dominion Post – Smacking bill sorted in time for Budget to shine
Of course by definition – again her own – the prime minister cannot “leak” since as the Government’s spokesperson what she says is automatically mandated.
When it comes to the Budget, Miss Clark and Finance Minister Michael Cullen have taken that to a new level.
So when ministers decide to say something, be it more money for tertiary institutions or a dollop of new health spending, then that is a pre- budget announcement.
However, should any reporter ask a straight – or even tangential – question about the Budget they are met with much eye-rolling and “you should know better than to even ask” looks. Certainly Miss Clark’s deal- making over an amendment to Green MP Sue Bradford’s child discipline bill was kept firmly under wraps till the ink was dry, and the way cleared for yesterday’s exceptional joint press conference with National leader John Key.
Once it saw the light of day it prompted a predictable scramble between the two big parties, with both declaring relative victories.
Labour can claim it showed a leader in Miss Clark who could broker the deals and herd the cats in an MMP world.
At the same time it has helped remove the erroneous perception that responsible and mild parents would be hauled into court, without compromising on Miss Bradford’s bottom line that a level of acceptable hitting must never be defined.
National can claim it helped achieve a compromise that Miss Bradford had previously resisted, ensuring parents would not be criminalised for delivering a light smack.
(It has also removed the embarrassing prospect for National, in government, of drafting a bill that would provide a state mandate for violence against children, however minor.)
What remains unclear is whether National will suffer a backlash from those who think – rightly – that the amendment changes little beyond providing a level of “comfort” for concerned parents. Police discretion is now enshrined in the Bill, but let’s not forget that smacking for correction is still illegal.
The real winners, though, are the police.
As Parliament implicitly, or overtly, ruled out smacking that caused trifling or transitory harm (under the Chester Borrows amendment) or minor and inconsequential (under the proposed John Key wording) their job was made more difficult.
By a law of unintended consequences, there was a risk that every time MPs tried to define acceptable levels of smacking – and were defeated – the police’s ability to use their discretion diminished and the risk they would have to move against even light smacking increased.
That does raise the question of whether the clauses in the bill which define where force for non-corrective purposes is allowed are now necessary – but it is unlikely a tired Parliament will want to open that debate again.
The twin pillars of secrecy surrounding the Bradford bill and the Budget were, in fact, tightly intertwined.
A deal over the Bradford bill, which will now get Parliament’s overwhelming endorsement on May 16, clears the decks for the Budget the following day.
It may remain controversial for some time, as the police response to the new law is tested and examined, but with National on board it will lack a high profile political champion.
And make no mistake, this is a Budget the Government does not want overshadowed.
It comes as National consolidates a big poll lead and Labour fights to regain the initiative – and turn back any perception it is tired as its third term rolls on.
For the first time in many years Dr Cullen is not banging on about his Budget being boring, beige and predictable…….
……..Then, the heat around the Bradford bill may fade more quickly from the voters’ hearts and minds.
Rev Mike Weitenberg of the Wellington Metro Global Church Community, described it as a sugar-coated pill to cover a deadly blow to the New Zealand family.
“It’s food for custody battles, it’s food for neighbourhood disputes, it’s food for false accusations against parents by children who can’t get their own way.
“It’s a family invasion, it’s a cultural invasion and it’s an invasion attacking democracy.”
Wrestling with his conscience
Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven last night revealed how close he came to crossing the floor over the Bradford bill.
Mr Duynhoven is one of Labour’s more conservative MPs, and was frequently challenged by National MPs to vote with opponents of the bill.
“On this issue I have been more torn than any other issue we have debated in this House,” he said.
“I have seriously considered whether I fitted still, whether my views and the basis of my value system were appropriate for the party I am in.”
3 May 2007 – DDP Of NZ – DDP Disappointed In Support For Smacking Bill
Thursday, 3 May 2007, 9:51 am
Press Release: Direct Democracy Party Of NZ Press Release from the Direct Democracy Party:
DDP Disappointed In National Support For Smacking Bill
The Direct Democracy Party is disappointed that the National Party have decided to now support the anti smacking Bill being promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford, despite overwhelming public opposition to the Bill.
“There have been multiple polls, both public and privately monitored, that have recorded anywhere between 70% – 90% public opposition to Sue Bradford’s Bill – if a Binding Referendum (a cornerstone of Direct Democracy Party policy) were held on this issue, this legislation would have been consigned to the political scrapheap long ago” says Direct Democracy Party Leader Kelvyn Alp.
“It is clear that Police discretion not to prosecute will still allow police discretion to prosecute, thereby criminalising parents by default – however, the Police are not our greatest concern, but rather Child, Youth, and Family (CYF).”
“CYF will most certainly not “exercise discretion”as the Bill encourages the police to do. CYF will not be concerned with any “public interest” whatsoever. If this legislation passes in its current form, CYF will be able to say that smacking is illegal, and then arbitrarily intervene into the lives of innocent, decent, law-abiding families, families who now have everything to fear from this legislation becoming law in its current form.
“The Bradford anti-smacking Bill, now supported by the National Party, is a body blow to Democracy and for New Zealand families” says Mr Alp.
“The Direct Democracy Party gives an unequivocal commitment to the people of New Zealand that, if elected to Parliament in 2008, we will repeal the anti-smacking Bill in its entirety – the people of New Zealand who so overwhelmingly oppose this legislation deserve no less.”
2 May 2007 – Family First Lobby – Bradford continues to mislead the country
Bradford continues to mislead the country – and blame the media for it!
On the 15th March 2007, Greens MP Sue Bradford put out a press release in relation to her bill amending section 59 saying “I have never called it an anti-smacking bill – my opponents did, and the media adopted the phrase. Smacking a child is already an assault under section 194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It has been this way for over a century. If my Bill is passed this will not change.” (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10668.html )
However, in a press release from 2003 when the bill was first mooted, the release is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” and says “The Greens are designing a bill that will stop parents physically punishing their children, in line with United Nations demands.” (http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR6778.html )
This proves that the media and groups like Family First have been correct in labeling the bill the ‘anti-smacking’ bill, and that the supporters of the bill are trying to mislead the country regarding the effects of this bill.
The supporters of the bill have also been dishonest by saying that smacking a child is already an assault.
In 2003, Judge Ingalls QC, Family District Court Judge, said “as a matter of law the effect of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 in smacking of a child for the purposes of correction, was entirely lawful if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonable force used against a child for the purposes of correction could not be, by law, categorized as physical abuse of a child.”
Grant Illingworth QC says “The relevant part of the current section 59 provides that every parent of a child and every person in the place of the parent of a child is “justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances”. The important word is “justified”. The use of this word is the clearest possible indication that the act in question (reasonable use of force for correction) is NOT unlawful.”
While the Prime Minister has said “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child”, Sue Bradford has been forced to acknowledge that not all smacking is illegal under the law.
Family First calls on the MP’s to use education and policies that strengthen, not criminalise, families to tackle child abuse – and not to be misled by the rhetoric of the supporters of this bill who will do anything they can to mislead the public into supporting this bill.
ENDS
2 May 2007 – nzherald – The smacking bill – what it says
The smacking bill – what it says
5:00AM Wednesday May 02, 2007
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The proposed Law – then
What Sue Bradford’s bill said when she introduced it in July 2005
Section 59 of the principal act is repealed. The stated purpose of the bill: “To abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as justification for disciplining children.”
The proposed Law – now
What Sue Bradford’s bill says now after 18 months in a select committee [likely to pass]:
Section 59 is repealed and substituted with the following section on parental control: Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
It then says: Nothing [in the above] or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
The stated purpose of the amended bill changed: “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.”
Proposed addition to bill
Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope has moved an amendment [likely to pass]:
To require the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development to review the effects of the new act after it has been in place for two years.
Proposed change before house national MP
Chester Borrows’ amendments to be debated tonight define the limits of unacceptable force [likely to fail]:
The use of force is unreasonable if it … causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or any weapon or tool is used; or it is inflicted by any mean that is cruel, degrading, or terrifying. He wants the purpose of the bill changed to state: “To make better provision for the parental control of children by limiting the use of force for the purpose of correction.”
John Key’s failed proposal
The National leader tried but failed to find support for a proposal between Borrows and Bradford:
It would have adopted the Bradford purpose of the bill … “abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”. He proposed a new Section 59: “Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential.”
FINALLY AGREEMENT
Prime Minister Helen Clark uses the language of the Key proposal to give guidance to the police to ignore inconsequential breaches of the new law, with the additional wording:
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.
2 May 2007 – big-news – National to vote for the anti smacking bill
Wednesday, May 02, 2007 National to vote for the anti smacking bill
National is to vote for the anti smacking bill after National and Labour agreed to an amendment last night. They should have done this ages ago.
What the amendment says
To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.
What this means, if this bill is written into the clause of the Act, is that police do not have to uphold the law in all cases. It is a compromise, it is not ideal, but it may be politically achievable. However if it is written into the preliminary guidelines, it has no legal effect and police can ignore it.
What the leaders should have added is that if police have discretion not to prosecute, they also have discretion as to whether they report such discipline to Child,Youth and Family. Its my understanding that as the bill stands, police will have to report all such reported discipline to CYFS. So if they have discretion in prosecuting, they should also have discretion in notification to CYFS.
Bradford says it is an
Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and their supporters have been saying:
“It’s not an anti-smacking bill”
But check out this link, on the Greens website:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR6778.html
Justice | Children’s Issues | All Press Releases
Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill
Sue Bradford MP, Green Party Children’s Issues Spokesperson
6th October 2003
The Greens are designing a bill that will stop parents physically punishing their children, in line with United Nations demands.
Green MP Sue Bradford says her bill will repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, the provision that condones the use of physical force by parents against children.
We want to end the situation where there is a legal defence to striking a child.”
A new report from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child says it is deeply concerned New Zealand has not changed the law which allows parents to use so-called “reasonable” force against their children.
Ms Bradford said today parents have used Section 59 to get away with, not only smacking their children, but also whacking them with bits of wood and other objects.
“I can’t understand why the Government is delaying doing anything about Section 59 until the next election year. The safety and welfare of our children is too important to put on hold.”
Ms Bradford, Green Children’s Issues Spokesperson, said it was the inalienable right of every child to be free from any form of violence or abuse.
“Parents are supposed to be protectors, not attackers, and children should feel totally safe at home. Section 59 adds to the whole culture of abuse of children that is still so rampant in New Zealand society.”
——————————————————————————–
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand > Green Library > Press Releases
Home | Join | Donate | Get Active | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Privacy | Copyright
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 JohnsonvillePress Release
1 May 2007
Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support
MPs must relegate Bradford’s bill to the trash can if parents cannot be assured in the legislation that its purpose is NOT to have parents and those in the place of parents charged with an assault on a child for applying a smack with “reasonable force” for the purpose of “correction”. Bradford and the Prime Minister Helen Clark are expecting the public to believe their word that they will not be charged and prosecuted because “police will use their discretion” and will not charge them following formal complaints for smacking. That’s not good enough for the vast majority of thinking New Zealand parents. As the Dominion Post editorial points out today: “opponents of her [Bradford’s] legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation “justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. That, however, much she may deny it, is a ban on what people would regard as smacking.” (1 May, B4).
The traffic speeding analogy is often used by Bradford’s supporters to support their claim that the police will not prosecute parents who continue to smack their kids for correction, in the same way that police have discretion in whether they criminalise a speeding motorist. Katherine Rich, spokesperson for Education no less, has relied on this poor analogy to defend the bill that no one else in her caucus is supporting. She used this flawed analogy in the weekend:
“Many extreme – and public – cases of child abuse involved parents who thought they were using appropriate force, said Rich. The repeal of Section 59 would send a message that using physical force against children was not appropriate.
“Criminalising is such an emotive word. If you drive at 101km/h, that doesn’t make you a criminal. But if you drive at 140km/h, then it’s far more clear-cut.” (NZ Herald 29 April).
Rich falsely claims that police officers deciding whether to investigate and lay charges for a reported smacking incident will be in the same position as traffic officers have who make decisions based on discretion whether or not to lay a criminal charge for speeding, rather than just issuing an infringement notice. This is a false analogy.
The police cannot only lay a criminal charge once a driver is recorded as having exceeded any given speed limit by 40 kms/hr or more. An automatic 28-day suspension of the driving licence is applied and the driver faces a criminal charge in Court. At sentencing there will be a minimum further disqualification of the licence of 3 months and furthermore, the possibility of a fine and/or imprisonment.
Police cannot lay criminal charges for speeding when a vehicle is driven at less than 40 km/hr over the speed limit so have no discretion in such cases. Such a charge can only be laid if other aspects of the law are broken (e.g. dangerous driving).
Motorists will generally incur a fine and demerit points for speeds between 111 and 140 kms/hr. Again, there is no discretion to lay criminal charges unless there are other factors involved (proximity to schools, careless driving etc.).
The only area under current policy where discretion on the part of police can apply for cars is where speeds of up to 11 kms/hr over the speed limit are recorded. In issuing a warning, rather than an infringement notice (fine) in such circumstances, the police are NOT suggesting that the action of the driver is reasonable or acceptable of lawful. Quite the opposite. ALL SPEEDNG IS AGAINST THE LAW. It constitutes either a traffic offence or a criminal offence. There is no justification offered in law for a member of the public to travel at over 140 kms/hr and escape conviction and no provision in law informing them that it is lawful to exceed 100 kms/hr.
The police authorities have confirmed that all formal complaints of smacking for correction will have to be treated as potential criminal offences (domestic violence) and will require thorough investigation (police statements from witnesses, victim and child abusing parents to be recorded and the collecting of medical evidence that may need to be submitted at a deposition hearing etc.). If the law’s purpose as stated is “abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction” the police will have to be vigilant in exterminating the last vestige of any smacking culture in New Zealand by using the full force of the law. Good parents who break the rules against smacking will need to have the force of the law applied to make them comply.
Bradford and Clark know full well that the effect of Bradford’s bill is to make all forms of force used by parents for correction, illegal. Parents have a right to know if their actions constitute an offence in law, just as drivers have a right to have speed limits regularly notified to them by way of traffic signs, and made clearly visible from the driving lane. If the Ministry of Transport is not prepared to inform drivers by proper signs, then it has no right to prosecute drivers for breaking speed limits known only to the authorities! Failure to do so means in practice that drivers cannot be convicted.
Parents have a right to know in law what level of force, if any, can be used for “correction”. In the existing law s. 59 sets the limit: “reasonable force in the circumstances”. This is perfectly fine. However, if that provision is removed then they potentially face prosecution for using ANY level of force. Bradford argues that no limit needs to be set because police will not be enforcing charges against minor force such as smacking, even though her law declares such actions illegal and need to be abolished. She is relying on some sort of de facto law that the police will come up with to set limits of force. This is a nonsense law.
If the term “reasonable care” meant nothing drivers could never be prosecuted for reckless driving. Unreasonable care involves placing the driver or passengers and others or in danger etc. Ironically the term “reasonable force” is a term Bradford has still retained to provide limits for use of force in the four exemptions under section (1).
The boundary between reasonable and unreasonable use of force is determined by the police before laying charges for assault under the existing section 59, taking into account the facts of the case and the circumstances involved in the domestic discipline etc. The amended Bradford bill recognises that such boundaries do exist and can be defined with respect to force used in the four situations covered in section 1 (a-d). However, it is the view of the bill’s proponents that no force is reasonable when used for correction and this is enshrined in the bill by the specific removal of the existing defence applying to force for correction. Its removal, for the first time, makes all forms of smacking for correction illegal.
Under Bradford’s bill all use of reasonable force for correction, including smacking, becomes a criminal offence. The law does not have a special provision for light smacks – worthy only of a mere traffic infringement notice (to use the flawed analogy she relies on). That there is no lesser category for “light smacks” comparable to traffic infringements proves that the purpose of the bill is to abolish ALL use of force for correction.
If Bradford’s bill becomes law she knows that one of its effects will be to make it legal to use reasonable force on a child to minimise harm (s. 1a). Why would it be legal one might ask? Because under the new law there would be a specific justification for the use of reasonable force in such circumstances (“…every parent…. Is justified….”).
But the same justification exists in current law for the use of such force for correction – including smacking. And yet Bradford and Clark have repeatedly claimed publicly that under current law lightly smacking a child for correction is illegal. When asked why it is illegal they respond: Because any form of smack applied for any reason constitutes an “assault” under s. 2 of the Crimes Act (1961)? This statement is false. In the above example involving harm minimisation (s. 1 a) Bradford affirms that the force is used legally, but then contradicts herself when considering force used for correction under current law. The same justifications are used which mean that the actions are legal.
END
1 May 2007 – nzherald – Smacking handy as back-up, says expert
Dr Robert Larzelere has been brought to New Zealand by groups opposed to Sue Bradford’s bill. Photo / Brett Phibbs
One of the world’s leading experts on disciplining children says parents need smacking as a “back-up” for other forms of discipline for children aged from 2 to 6.
Dr Robert Larzelere, an American who says he has written three of the six main reviews of the scientific literature on smacking, has been brought to New Zealand by lobby groups opposing Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal the law allowing parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children.
He will be in Wellington today for a meeting with National MPs convened by Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, whose amendment defining reasonable force will be voted on in Parliament tomorrow.
Dr Larzelere will meet Sue Bradford tomorrow. He will also meet two New Zealand First MPs who support her bill, Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly, and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, whose party will discuss the Bradford bill today.
In the debates in the scientific literature, Dr Larzelere has been the leading proponent of smacking.
Canadian Joan Durrant, who was brought to New Zealand by the Government last year, has led the opposing argument that smacking produces a more violent society, citing Sweden as a model of a society where a smacking ban has reduced violence.
Dr Larzelere, 62, attends a Baptist Church near the university where he works in Oklahoma, but he rejects Dr Durrant’s allegation that this makes him biased.
He says he smacked his two now-adult children “occasionally”.
“When they were small, I would use a warning count one to three,” he said yesterday. “In almost all cases I’d get action just as I got to three, so I only had to smack them a few times.”
His research over 20 years showed that the best way to stop young children misbehaving was to use reasoning backed up by punishment – initially non-physical punishment such as time out, but with a smack if the children refused to co-operate.
“To me, it seems like today we polarise all arguments to ridiculous extremes and we don’t do so well at finding the balance in the middle.
“So I have tried to be as scientific as possible to inform this debate, rather than having the people choose between the two polarised positions.”
His research showed that to be effective, smacking should be used only as a “conditional” back-up, not as a primary form of discipline.
“The best way to use it is this back-up smacking – non-abusive, two swats with an open hand to the rear end, on 2- to 6-year-old children,” Dr Larzelere said.
He would support a ban on smacking babies, and in one published paper said smacking could be counter-productive for children of 7 or over when they were old enough to “internalise” the rules of good behaviour.
Yesterday he stopped short of supporting a ban on smacking children over 6 because of one study that found that physical punishment of 13-year-old African-Americans made them less aggressive three years later.
“So although I think it should be phased out as quickly as possible [as a child gets older], I see exceptions that suggest it shouldn’t be an absolute rule.”
He said colleagues who had worked in parenting education in Norway, where smacking is banned at all ages, reported that Norwegian parents were “immobilised” by not knowing how to control their children.
“So their children run wild, according to newspaper reports,” he said.
Similarly in Sweden, where the legal defence of using force to discipline children was abolished in 1957, criminal assaults by under-15-year-olds against other 7- to 14-year-olds had increased by 519 per cent in the period from 1981 to 1994.
Dr Durrant argued this was because of more reporting of assaults by children against other children.
But Dr Larzelere said that did not explain why the assault rate rose more in the younger age groups than in older age groups, which he sees as evidence that youthful misbehaviour has worsened since the ban on smacking.
1 May 2007 – SPCS – Call to Abandon Bradford’s Flawed Bill
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
1 May 2007
Call to Abandon Bradford’s Flawed Bill
A guilt-ridden Ms Katherine Rich MP, mother of two children and Education spokesperson for the National Party, candidly confessed to the nation in the weekend that she was “way out of control” and “totally lost it” when she lightly smacked her son Jonathan on a couple of occasions for some apparent minor misdemeanours. Rich, a National List MP, who is the only National MP continuing to support Green Party MP Sue Bradford’s unpopular ‘anti-smacking’ bill, stated:
“I smacked Jonathan a couple of times – but I’m deeply ashamed of that. I’ve thought about those situations and it was more to do with my tiredness and inability to cope than trying to find genuine ways of directing him.
“The time when I just totally lost it because … sometimes you just lose all tolerance … he turned around to me and said, ‘Mummy, why did you do that, you’re supposed to be happy’.
“I decided very early on it didn’t serve any purpose. I recall seeing the fear on his face when I raised my hand. I realised I was the one out of control – he was just being a child.” (NZ Herald 29 April).
The Society believes that very few thinking New Zealand parents will be persuaded by this sort of heart-felt confession, that they too need to do penance for with Rich by lending support to Bradford’s deeply flawed anti-family bill. Of course most loving parents, like Rich, would concede that they might have made the odd mistake (e.g. slight over-reaction) in dealing with disciplinary matters, when tired and struggling to cope with their kids bad behaviour. It is ludicrous and deeply insulting that the promoters of Bradford’s bill continue to suggest that genuine loving parents, who might occasionally smack their kids for correction, “abuse” their kids using physical “violence”. Like Rich they appear ideologically-driven by the misguided belief that nothing justifies the use of any kind of force for the purpose of the correction of children and appear to actually believe that light smacking actually constitutes “child abuse”.
Many parents actually think that Rich has “totally lost it” by supporting Bradford’s pointless bill for the reasons she has stated. Over 80% of New Zealanders polled have consistently opposed the bill which Rich is hailing as the answer to New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Most see the bill and her support of it as a direct attack on the family. They’re sick and tired of the dishonest rhetoric coming from the bill’s sponsor Ms Bradford. As the Dominion Post editorial stated today “…opponents of her legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation ‘justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction’. That, however, much she [Bradford] may deny it, is a ban on what most people would regard as smacking.’ (May 1, B4).
Most parents of young children will appreciate the circumstances that may have led to Ms Rich’s ‘disciplinary’ actions involving light smacks. However, without knowing the specifics it is hard to comment on whether her actions qualified as a genuine and justified case for corrective physical discipline where reasonable force was required, or not. The fact that Jonathan did not know what the smack was for and had to ask the reason why it was applied, suggests that Ms Rich failed in the basics of corrective discipline. A smack must be judiciously applied only after adequate reasons have been given to the child and the child complies to receiving the corrective. It must be appropriate in the circumstances and never be administered in anger or merely to release the frustrations of an exasperated parent or person in the place of a parent. The fact that Rich was at her wits’ end when she says she smacked Jonathan could suggest that he had repeatedly disobeyed and/or ignored her instructions. However, the fact that his aggravating behaviour is described as arising from him “just being a child” suggests that it may not have been appropriate “in the circumstances” to apply a smack.
Whatever the circumstances were, most New Zealand parents would understand the type of situation Rich might have faced with her son Jonathan and would sympathise with her frustrations. Most parents cringe from their actions when, upon reflection, they realise that they reacted inappropriately in seeking to correct their child for wrongdoing. A good parent would always seek to promptly correct and modify his/her behavioural responses in the light of their mistakes, perhaps requesting advice from his or her spouse or wider family. However, a smack using reasonable force, does not constitute “child abuse”, as Rich seems to imply it does. It is hard to understand why she continues to support Bradford’s seriously flawed and pointless private member’s bill that has as its stated purpose 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”. [Emphasis added].
The bill’s original purpose prior to its amendment during the select committee stages stated, to:
“… abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children”.
Both opponents and supporters of the bill do share common ground in genuinely wanting a reduction in child abuse and both agree that this bill will NOT achieve this goal. In the light of these facts it is farcical that MP’s supporting Bradford’s bill have amended the original bill in such a way that as to actually assert something they do not actually believe: that “violence” against children (child abuse) will be reduced once “parental force for the purpose of correction” is abolished: a clear case of either self-delusion, or contradiction and dishonesty on the part of the bill’s supporters. Furthermore, it is ludicrous that the bill uses the verb to abolish (“abolishing the use of parental force”) and yet Bradford and the Prime Minister, Miss Helen Clark have repeatedly told the public that the bill is not about banning smacking and is only about removing the defence of reasonable force from s. 59.
It’s time to be honest in this messy, time-wasting debate! Light smacking for correction constitutes force used for correction. “Abolishing” means getting rid of. Therefore, the intention of the bill must include getting rid of the use of light smacking for correction! To say otherwise is to be dishonest. Reinforcing this conclusion is the fact that the bill only allows the defence of “reasonable force” for acts of force used against children in four specific circumstances (section 1 [a] to [d]) – four exemptions – but removes this defence from the Principal Act where it is applied specifically to acts involving “correction” (involving “domestic discipline”).
Bradford’s bill, in its current form, including the amendments, contains nothing to back up the bill’s supporters’ claims that its purpose is: [1] NOT to ban smacking, but [2] rather is focused just on removing the defence of “reasonable force” against prosecution of an adult (parent) for an assault against a child, in cases involving correction. As shown above a reasonable and logical interpretation of the wording of the bill (see Dominion Post quote above) must lead one to draw the conclusion that the bill, once put into law, will make it a criminal offence to lightly smack a child for the purpose of “correction”. If that was not the intention of the bill as Helen Clark and Sue Bradford claim, then it must be stated in the bill as Nation Party MP Chester Borrows and his Party leader John Key have cogently argued, by introducing their respective amendments to the bill, both of which have been flatly rejected by Bradford.
You’d think I’d be inured to political stupidity by now. It appears I am not.
In a wonderful piece of self-gratulation, Tariana Turia (Maori Party) blamed Christianity and colonisation for the introduction of smacking to the Maori people as a form of discipline.
I’m no fan of Sue Bradford’s bill, I freely admit. But neither am I a fan of someone who appears to be placing the blame for a problem in the here and now – child abuse in some Maori families[*] – on the actions of colonising Europeans over two hundred years ago!
Let’s backtrack.
First, Sue Bradford’s intention was to make the use of violence unacceptable against children. A goal I applaud. She’s chosen to do it by attempting to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows reasonable force as a defense when under charges of ‘over-disciplining’ your children. Unfortunately, politics has got in the way, and we’re left with a big ugly mess, given incredibly bad press, very little public support, and very little public understanding.
Second, it’s true that statistically speaking, Maori families have higher reported rates of family violence. I agree that that’s a situation which needs change. I agree that the colonisation of New Zealand changed the Maori people irrevocably. It introduced the concept of Christianity. Shall we examine some Christian principles?
The Bible says that children should be disciplined. We all know “Spare the rod, spoil the child”. But child abuse was never, never, what Christianity preached. I’m not even Christian, and I have better understanding than that! Jesus himself loved children. He taught peace, taught respect for one’s fellow man. Taught that a husband and wife should love and respect each other, and in turn teach and care for their children in a loving way.
Shall we also look at historically provable things the Maori, as a people, did prior to European colonisation of them?
Wiped out the Moriori (historically debatable, I admit)
Had bloody wars between tribes
Drove the moa into extinction
Hardly the record of a peaceful people whose whanau were only corrupted by the heinous introduction of the European settlers.
Further, has it escaped Tariana Turia’s notice that many European families, both now and in the past, also had parents who were perfectly capable of disciplining their children without physical violence?
Think about how society has changed, too. Remember the time where it took a village to bring up a child? Where parents had support from the surrounding community, were near their parents, their siblings, in constant communication with their friends and families, had support networks to rely on? How many parents today bring up their children as best they can, with parents and families many miles away, both having to work each day, without their whanau surrounding them?
So, here’s my advice, Tariana. Think about what you can do to support the people you represent, here and now. Instead of trying to foist away the blame for today on people two hundred years ago, look for ways to make it better tomorrow.
Of course, my voice means nothing. I’m only one of the …… Pakeha who corrupted your people. Shall I make sure the door doesn’t slap me …… on the way out?
(* I specify Maori abuse as Tariana Turia is representative of the Maori party. I am thoroughly aware that Europeans and other racial groups are represented in the statistics about child abuse. Thanks.)
30 April 2007 – Right To Life New Zealand Inc – Search and Destroy – Down Syndrome
Right to Life deplores the decision of the Minister of Health the Hon Pete Hodgson to request the National Screening Unit to advise him on how to implement a national screening programme for Down syndrome. A programme for screening all pregnant women for Down syndrome is a search and destroy mission. Those women who tested positive for Down syndrome would be encouraged to abort their child. The sole purpose of this programme would be to define who shall live and who shall die. This is unjust discrimination against the disabled. Every child at conception is endowed by its creator with an inalienable right to life. A child does not lose its right to life because it has a genetic condition.
The Minister of Health has a responsibility to protect life and to promote the health of the community; his action reveals that the government does not welcome the birth of children with Down syndrome. Its response is to sanction and fund the killing of children with Down syndrome; this is eugenics which promotes a humanistic quality of life ethic which decrees that only the perfect have a right to life. The Minister in this action is promoting a culture of death. The right to life is a sacred principle of civilisation; it is an indispensable guarantee of the individual worth of the persons within it, its universal denial would fail to recognise the dignity of man.
There are many people who are born with Down syndrome who have a good quality of life and who make a valuable contribution to the family and society.
Right to Life welcomes the Minister’s decision to discontinue risky diagnostic tests that have been leading to the miscarriage of dozens of unborn children.
This proposed national screening programme should be seen in the context of the public debate on the government supported repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act that would outlaw the smacking of children. The Prime Minister has said that her government wishes to give a clear message to the community that violence against children is unacceptable. Violence against children begins in the womb. The government is giving the message that they support the killing of unborn children, including those with Down syndrome, but that after birth you may not smack them.
30 April 2007 – nzherald – Survey may force Maori Party shift on Bradford bill
Monday April 30, 2007The fate of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill appears to rest with the Maori Party caucus which will discuss it tomorrow in the light of a poll showing overwhelming 80 per cent opposition to it by Maori.
The party has backed the bill but the resounding Maori opposition may create pressure to back a proposal by National Party leader John Key to allow “minor and inconsequential” smacking.
It is believed to have been a consistent topic of concern raised at the consultation hui the four Maori Party MPs have held up and down New Zealand during the three-week recess.
If the Maori Party decides to back the Key amendment, it would have the numbers to pass.
But Sue Bradford has said she would withdraw it in those circumstances.
The bill, which returns to the House on Wednesday, outlaws the use of physical force against children for purposes of correction. It allows it to prevent a child from engaging in harmful, disruptive, illegal or offensive behaviour.
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia indicated at the weekend that the party would continue to support the bill, despite 80 per cent of Maori in the Marae Digipoll survey opposing it. But she could not be contacted last night to discuss the Key proposal.
She said at the weekend the present law allowed a legal defence against abuse. “We will not support abuse. We have got to show leadership. If we are looking at all the statistics we have got the worst statistics in the OECD. ”
Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia was also committed to supporting it, saying he saw the “other side” of smacking. “I visit the refuges.
“We know that we have rampant violence in some areas for a whole host of reasons within our families. We must address that.”
Mr Key said he had spoken to Mrs Turia on Saturday night about his proposal and said she had a very clear understanding of the law. She would discuss it with the caucus tomorrow.
“We can’t do it without the Maori Party,” Mr Key told the Herald.
He believes the Maori Party might be more tempted to back the amendment since the Marae poll.
He also said if Sue Bradford’s bill passed and it was challenged in a citizens-initiated referendum at next year’s election he would be inclined to change the law to reflect his own proposal.
Former United Future MP Larry Baldock said last night that he had had 163,150 signatures since March 1.
That makes it likely he will get the requisite 300,000 (10 per cent of registered electors) by March 1 next year in order to get a referendum.
“They had better prepare themselves for a referendum – and the bill hasn’t passed yet.” The petition asks:
* Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
* Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse?
Mr Baldock said he had tried to discourage his own associates from attending the Destiny Church rally at Parliament on Wednesday, when the bill returns for further debate.
“This is not a church issue. This has never been just a bunch of Christians who want to retain the right to smack their kids. It is 80 per cent of New Zealanders.”
kiwiblog – Letter from John Key to Party Leaders on Smacking
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
If an MP votes against that amendment, it will make it pretty clear they are voting to ban correctional smacking.
26 April 2007 – By Audrey Young – Labour left between
Audrey Young: Labour left between a rock and a hard place
5:00AM Thursday April 26, 2007 By Audrey Young
National leader John Key played pragmatic politics this week and Green MP Sue Bradford played principled politics.
In a sense, both were playing to their parties’ strengths.
In a sense, neither can be condemned for that.
It leaves the anti-smacking bill exactly where it was: legislation that will outlaw the use of physical force to teach children a lesson or for “correction”, but with two different predictions about how the law will be applied.
Supporters are certain the police will not prosecute parents who smack their children lightly – just as the police don’t press assault charges now for such action.
Opponents caution that a new law that specifically bans force to discipline children will invite prosecutions for a light smack.
Key offered a significant compromise this week on his party’s previous position on the anti-smacking bill.
He accepted the bill’s primary function – to ban the use of force against children for correction on one proviso that it explicitly allow for “minor and inconsequential” smacks in the course of parenting.
What he proposed this week was no more than the assurances given by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Bradford that parents who smack lightly would not be criminalised.
Instead of trusting their predictions of police interpretation, Key wanted the proviso written into the law.
While there is an inherent contradiction in what he offered – banning physical punishment but allowing it a little bit – it is no more of a contradiction than that already existing in Bradford’s bill.
Bradford rejected the compromise because it was inconsistent with the principle driving the bill.
She wants to put children on the same footing as adults and to remove the notion that it is excusable to use any form of violence on them – children – other than a few exceptions outlined in the bill such as to save them or others from harm.
To define in law what level of violence was allowed against children would be like trying to define what level of violence was allowed by men against women.
And anyway, Key’s compromise is a watered-down version of the amendments proposed by National MP Chester Borrows, which are set to be voted down next Wednesday.
Bradford is a mother of five. She has said from the first reading that it was not her intention to criminalise ordinary parents, that her target was those who hit or beat their children seriously.
The difficulty is that her intentions conflict with the actual bill.
She may not want police to prosecute smackers but the bill leaves it open to just such a response.
It is almost inconceivable Parliament will pass a law that explicitly bans physical punishment and then expects the police to prosecute only extreme cases.
It would have been a lot plainer if Bradford had said something like “this bill outlaws physical discipline against children and, even though I don’t want the police to prosecute smackers, they may do so because smacking is violence on a milder scale”.
But if she had promoted a hard line, or a bright line in the law, she would have kissed goodbye to Labour’s bloc support and relegated it back to a conscience issue, which is probably what it should have been.
Key’s failure this week will not alter the likelihood of the bill passing narrowly. It would have given Parliament the satisfaction of having broad-based support for such a contentious law.
Key will try to get as much mileage as he can from here.
He will now approach Labour which will almost certainly dismiss it as a stunt.
Any acceptance by Labour would also prompt Bradford to withdraw the bill (which might provide private relief to Labour if it is haemorrhaging support from women over its decision to back the bill).
Key, whether genuine or not – and Bradford believes he is – has manoeuvred himself into an enviable position on this issue.
If Labour agrees to his amendment, he gets the credit for showing some leadership on the issue. If it tells him to get lost, it rejects what is seen as a sensible way through a difficult issue.
Even if he fails, he wins.
27 April 2007 – SPCS – Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
27 April 2007 – SPCS – Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
Bradford Fails to Answer Questions on anti-smacking bill
The Society is very concerned that Ms Bradford appears unable or unwilling to answer key questions put to her regarding her unpopular private members bill that is opposed by over 80% of New Zealanders.
In an Open Letter to her dated 23 March (copied below) the Society sought urgent clarification on four matters relating to her contradictory public pronouncements on her bill that seeks to remove the defence of “reasonable force” for “correction” (that can be used currently by a parent against a charge of assault on a child), from Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). The explanation given by the Green Party for her lack of response is that she is “very busy”. Green Party worker, Ms Fran Tyler, has undertaken to give her the hurry up.
Tens of thousands of concerned parents who may face charges of criminal assault for lightly smacking their children for the purposes of corrective discipline, should Bradford’s flawed anti-family bill pass into law, await answers to the important questions the Society has raised. Bradford says the aim of her bill is to make it illegal for any parent or person in the place of parent to use any “force” for the purpose of “correction”. However, the bill does not specifically define what constitutes “force”.
On the other hand, she has agreed to retain the defence of “reasonable force”, but only for parents who she claims might face a charge of criminal assault for removing a child from harm’s way etc. But she is adamant that this defence cannot be used if the action is undertaken with the intent or purpose of “correction”: in whole or in “part”. In effect she has made an ass of the law. Current law provides a clear justification for the use of “reasonable force” by parents for correction. Bradford is seeking to make that which is perfectly legal, illegal, and thereby she undermines the authority of good and loving parents.
OPEN LETTER TO MS SUE BRADFORD MP
RE: Sue Bradford’s Private Members Bill dealing with Repeal of s. 59 that is opposed by 80% – 90% of New Zealanders polled.
23 March 2007
Dear Ms Fran Tyler
Please thank Ms Bradford for the answers she has supplied to the Society’s questions (1-4) re her bill.
[See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00301.htm]. However, having studied her answers, we are unable to comprehend how her position can be logically coherent within a legal framework. All our members feel the same way.
Please present to her a few short follow-up questions seeking urgent clarification. We would appreciate her prompt assistance.
Re Queston 1.
If as Ms Bradford stated on TV One’s Agenda programme: “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” – why has she in responsed to Q 1 by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” [Emphasis added]. We believe that it follows logically from the latter statement that some smacking is LEGAL; therefore the Agenda programme comment is inconsistent and misleading to say the least.
Questions: seeking clarification:
1.. How does Ms Bradford reconcile the apparent inconsistency between her two statements quoted and b.. What forms of smacking does she consider legal under the current Crimes Act? c.. Is it the smacking that is legal under current law or that which is illegal under current law that her bill intends to make illegal, or is it both forms? d.. Does Ms Bradford consider that it is unlawful under current law for a parent or person in the place of a parent to use “reasonable force” in the context of domestic discipline, for the purpose of correcting a child who exhibits extreme defiance and/or disobedience despite a number of clearly defined warnings to desist from wrong behaviour (see section 59 of Crimes Act)? e.. Is it the intention in her bill to prevent parents from correcting their children by using ANY actions that involve “reasonable force” in the circumstances? (vi) If so why, and why particularly has she sought to make illegal the use of ALL forms of force for correction carried out by the parent to achieve compliance from the disobediant/defiant child? Re. Questions 2-3
(vi) In the light of Ms Bradford’s negative answers concerning the lawful use of “reasonable force” in self-defence (s. 48) and by ship’s captains (s. 60), which we accept as correct; why did she state on Agenda “It’s actually illegal now to smack your child” when she knew full well that this is untruthful (s. s. 59) and has now done a U-turn on by stating: “Some smacking is therefore illegal under the current law.” (see above)? [Note the “reasonable force” defence provisions in s. 59, 60 and 48 serve the same purposes in protected those who use the force and those subject to the force].
Re Queston 4
(vi) Ms Bradford agreed to amendments to her bill which she now admits she did not feel were necessary, but agreed to in order to alleviate some doubts by some submitters – as she puts it “assertions by some submitters on the Bill that it [use of reasonable force for removing kids from harms waty etc.] may not be so justified”. In the light of these concessions to submitters, why is she opposed to a clarification of s. 59 (the Borrows amendment) so that judges can point jury members to a clearer definition of “reasonable force” as it applies to actions taken by parents in corrective discipline on children?
How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007 http://www.spcs.org.nz
If Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking bill’ is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for “correction” purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying “force” for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to “time-out” or “naughty-mat” zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of “correction”. The intention of Bradford’s flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for “correction” by parents or those in the place of parents.
Sadly, the New Zealand public has too often seen the ugly face of badly applied law. Some cases have involved the domestic discipline of children (the case of the criminalising [for assault] of foster parents Don and Anne Eathorne through the actions of CYFS) and others involving public facilities where children are cared for by dedicated staff (The notorious Christchurch Creche case). An example of the latter, is the case involving a creche worker – Judith Anne Hende – who was wrongfully convicted and sentenced in a District Court for an assault on a child in her care and charged with wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, stupefying a child (W) under her care. In 1995 the guilty verdict for stupefying was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the conviction was quashed. The Court directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered. Hende had been fined $1,000 by the District Court on the charge of stupefying a child.
More important to the debate over Bradford’s anti-family bill is the fact that when the Court of Appeal dealt with Hende’s conviction for assault, its ruling was that it be set aside and “the appellant be discharged without conviction”.
The Queen v Judith Anne Hende (CA196/95)
Coram: Eichelbaum CJ, Hardie Boys J and Henry J
Hearing 24 July 1995 (at Auckland)
On 18 September 1995 Judge Eichelbaum CJ issued the Court of Appeal’s Judgment that in part dealt with the assault charge against Ms Judith Anne Hende and he “discharged [her] without conviction”. Hende, the appellant, was a licensee of a creche and had appealed against her conviction and sentence for assault and other matters, by a District Court. The assault charge was laid by the police under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act. It was alleged that she assaulted a child (S) under the age of 14.
Eichelbaum CJ stated in his Judgment:
“The particulars alleged were ‘hitting child when [the child was] going berserk’ … The only prosecution evidence of the assault was in the depositions of two witnesses who were unavailable to give evidence at the trial.” [Permission was granted by the Judge for the depositions to be read at the trial.]… “The second witness (the sister of the first) said she saw the appellant smack the child twice with her open hand on his bottom, two smacks one after the other on the same occasion. Cross-examined briefly, she agreed her memory about what exactly happened was a bit hazy, and that the smacks would not have hurt.”
“Given, however, that as to the nature of the assault the Court had only the bare words quoted [by the witness], there was no justification for treating the incident as involving anything more than a pat on the bottom. Although technically an assault, it did not merit the stigma of a conviction and the fine [of $250] imposed”
“…the appellant has been through a seven day trial and two hearings before this Court, and the events are now three to four years old”
This tragic case highlights how police, even after presumably applying careful discretion (we doubt it in this case), will readily lay charges for a mere “technical assault” for incidents involving a mere “pat on the bottom”, and allow such trivial matters to be taken to Court leading to the stigma of a conviction and a fine being imposed on an innocent child care worker. Police merely do their job when Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) and similar agencies – the so-called “experts” in child advocacy – fail to apply commonsense, are consumed by their own misguided zeal and ideological bias and are goaded into action by parents with their own agendas. The Police regularly hand the troublesome matter from the basket labelled “Too Hard” – to the Courts – relying on the legal “experts” to decide. Police are too busy chasing serial rapists, child molesters, bank heist professionals, and those committing aggravated robberies and sexual assaults, to be bothered too much by cases involving children being patted on the bottom.
It is staggering and hard to believe that such trivial and ridiculous cases as those involving some of the charges laid against Judith Hende, end up in Court even without Ms Bradford’s bill becoming law! When it does become law – God forbid – the gloves are off! Agencies like CYFS will pursue all manner of trivial prosecutions against decent parents who seek to administer corrective discipline to their children for serious wrongdoing. They will use the police to hide behind. Bradford’s absurd and naïve claim that police discretion is the only filter needed to ensure that parents will not be criminalised for trivial cases involving light smacking etc. deserves the cynical response “Yeah Right!”.
It is noteworthy that on the charges of “ill-treatment” for which Hende was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to 200 hours community work, the appeal was allowed on a number of counts and a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal. A number of the key verdicts were therefore ordered to be set aside and a new trial was ordered.
The New Zealand public have overwhelmingly indicated via numerous opinion polls that they strongly oppose the repeal of section 59 and oppose Bradford’s “anti-smacking bill” – one that even if passed, will make no difference to rectifying the serious problem of child abuse in this country. The SPCS wants the serious problem of child abuse properly investigated by the government and the real root causes addressed urgently.
24 April 2007 – familyvalues – ‘The real school bully isn’t in the schoolyard’
‘The real school bully isn’t in the schoolyard’
Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 9:33 am
Press Release: http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mass gathering at Parliament Grounds
Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm http://www.familyvalues.net.nz
24 April 2007
‘The real school bully isn’t in the schoolyard’
Without provocation, the Government has forced Wainuiomata Christian College to disclose its disciplinary policies or face closure. Martin Keast, principal of Wainuiomata Christian College and Silverstream Christian School has reluctantly complied with the demand but states, ‘we do so under threat.’
In response to Mr Keast’s comments, Education Minister Steve Maharey, says: “The law is the law.’ Now lets take the anti smacking bill.
If this bill is passed, what will stop the Government (without any provocation) demanding from ordinary, law-abiding kiwi parents the same disclosure of their disciplinary measures in the home? After all, ‘the law is the law!’ Government’s planned national database to monitor all New Zealand children provides the framework to make this scenario a reality.
To that end, a mass gathering at Parliament Grounds will take place next week – Wednesday 2nd May at 12.30pm to oppose the anti-smacking bill. Speakers include Bishop Brian Tamaki, Pastor Peter Mortlock, Wellington Reverend Mike Weitenburg and former All Black and Wellington Hurricanes Captain Bull Allen.
20 April 2007 – Family Integrity – Questions for Key & Bradford
Press Release
For Immediate Distribution
It appears John Key of National and Bradford of the Greens are meeting
on ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April, to talk about Bradford’s Bill to usurp
parental authority by making it illegal to use any kind of reasonable
force to correct your own children.
Key appears to have swallowed Bradford’s first and foremost piece of
propaganda: that there is something wrong with Section 59.
Let us be clear about this: there is NOTHING wrong with Section 59. It
is a brilliant piece of legislation: simple, clear, flexible,
understood by each succeeding generation according to the social
attitudes of the times, not like Bradford’s proposed re-write of
Section 59, confused by too many undefined words and concepts.
If prevention of child abuse is the objective, why do they not deal
with the out of control bullying at schools which produces out of
control parents? Why do they not deal with the other causes of abuse:
household dysfunction due to temporary and transient relationships,
welfare dependency, lack of education even after at least 10 years of
compulsory school attendance, alcohol and drug abuse?
In every case wherein Section 59 was used to justify a parent’s use of
force with a child, the jury found, after examining carefully and
repeatedly all the facts, that the parent had been motivated by a
desire to correct the child (not to harm, beat, vent anger, humiliate,
get back) and that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Bradford to this day continues to call violence and abuse what juries
of 12 of her peers determined to be “reasonable force.” We now see,
from the way Bradford and the Select Committee re-wrote the Bill, that
it is not the “reasonable force” to which Bradford objects, for it is
still in the Bill: she is out to ban parental authority to correct
their own children.
Section 59 doesn’t promote abuse and violence toward children: it is
one of the laws AGAINST violence and abuse toward children because it
only allows parents to use “reasonable force” and then only “by way of
correction”. When Bradford says Section 59 has let people off for
using violence and severely beating children, she is using an extreme
perversion of the normal understanding of the English language to
communicate her particular take on it, a take that is not shared by
the vast majority of New Zealanders. This is a form of deceit, a way
of giving a false impression on purpose. Most people, concerned
parents in particular, call this for what it is — telling lies — and
do not let their children get into such dishonest habits of speech.
I trust that Key at least, if not every reporter in the country, will
demand that Bradford answer the following mysteries about her ridiculous
anti-parent, anti-family Bill (both the present Section 59 and the
Proposed Re-write are included below for reference):
Number One:What Is Meant by Correction?
A. Define “Correction” as it is used in this Bill.
B. Does the forbidden purpose of “Correction” include “discipline”?
C. Does it include “training”?
D. Does it include “chastisement”?
E. Does this bill mean that parents will be forbidden by law to use
“reasonable force in the circumstances” to discipline, train or
chastise their children?
F. Will Bradford’s definition of “correction” obviously fall outside
of what most parents would say is “incidental to good care and
parenting”? If not does that mean she is trying to redefine what
constitutes “good care and parenting”?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force?
A. Does the “reasonable force in the circumstances” of Sub-Sections 1a
through 1d of the re-write mean parents can employ smacking to
accomplish the purposes listed in those Sub-Sections in the same way
as that phrase in the present Section 59 allows parents to employ
smacking if it is used for the purpose of correction?
B. Does it mean parents can smack their children using implements as
it does in the present Section 59?
C. If this re-written Section 59 does not allow Parents to use either
smacking or implements, could you please explain what part of the
statute actually forbids such things and how it forbids their use?
Number Three: What is Wrong with Correcting Children?
A. Please clarify: It appears that Bradford does not object to the
“reasonable force in the circumstances” idea as it exists both in the
present Section 59 as well as in her re-write of Section 59. Is it
true that she objects to parents using reasonable force to correct
their chidren? What is it about correcting children to which Bradford
objects so strongly?
B. Please clarify: what is it about using “reasonable force” when it
is used for the purpose of correction that makes it so bad in
Bradford’s thinking that it must be legislated against when this same
“reasonable force” can be used in the multitude of other circumstances
allowed in Sub-Sections 1a through 1d?
C. Please clarify: is it possible to define WHEN reasonable force used
by parents is not legally forbidden in the following way: “As long as
the force is used on the child BEFORE or DURING the child’s act of
harm or crime or disruption or offense the force is justifiable (as
long as it is also reasonable in the circumstances). But if any force
is used on the child AFTER the child’s act of harm or crime or
disruption or offense THEN it is more likely to be understood in terms
of correction and is therefore illegal.”
D. How does Bradford intend to re-educate all those parents who view
“correction” (and “discipline” and “training” and “chastisement”) of
children as integral parts of “performing the normal daily tasks that
are incidental to good care and parenting”? How does Bradford intend
for the law, the police, the judges and the juries to deal with such
parents? Will Bradford write these intentions into the Bill itself as
part of the statute or just hope that everyone involved will adopt her
as-yet unpublished intentions in these areas?
Number Four: Isn’t “Reasonable Force” still “Reasonable Force”?
Bradford has consistently said that the “reasonable force for the
purpose of correction” provision of the current Section 59 has allowed
violent child abuse to take place where parents who severely beat
their chidlren with horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving
welts, were let off. The re-write of Section 59 does not change the
“reasonable force” provision in any way except to forbid it for the
purpose of correction and to specifically justify it for the multitude
of purposes mentioned in Sub-Sections 1a thorugh 1d. How does this in
any way discourage parents from severely beating their chidlren with
horse whips, planks of wood and hosepipes, leaving welts, if they do
it for the purposes of preventing harm, crime, offensive or disruptive
behaviour? And how does this new wording discourage juries from
letting them off? The words justifying the use of force are precisely
the same; the only difference is that “correction” is now forbidden,
but a huge multitude of other actions are justified. As Simon Maud of
the NZ Law Society said, this re-write of Section 59 appears to allow
for more use of force against children, not less.
Number Five: So If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Parents Are
Automatically Guilty?
A. Please clarify: Sub-Section 3 says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over
Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a jury whether
a parent’s use of force was preventative or corrective that the
corrective interpretation must prevail? Does this not mean that,
contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only
guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries will be
required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt?
B. Please clarify: If I come up unnoticed by my son as he is stealing
apples from the neighbour’s tree and slap his hand as he picks another
one so that he doen’t actually detach it, and confesses he was
stealing without the neighbour’s permission, this is justified by
Sub-Section 1b?
C. If I then take him by the shoulders and forcefully march him to the
neighbour’s, with him protesting every inch of the way, to give back
the apples he did pick, this is probably corrective but might be part
of good parenting. But since there is a doubt about whether the force
used to march him to the neighbours was good parenting or corrective,
Sub-Section 3 kicks in and the force used is therefore not justified
and I’d be guilty of assault?
D. If, after marching him to the neighbour’s and forcing him to give
the apples back, I then force my son to apologise to the neighbour and
offer to pay for the two he ate while picking the others. Since he
didn’t was not going to do either, I said he’d be banned from any TV,
Video or any other electronic entertainment for two weeks unless he
did. So he apologised and offered to pay and the neighbour asked for
$3.00 in reparation. When we got home, my son adamantly refused to
fork over $3.00 saying the apology was more than enough. At this point
I physically take $3.00 from his piggy bank in his room (and later
give it to the neighbour) and also ban him from electronic
entertainment for one week (not two) for not complying with what I
required of him in front of the neighbour. He never agreed with any of
this. During the next week there were four instances where I had
physically to wrest remotes and an ipod from him in order to enforce
the ban I laid down against him. Since these actions are clearly to
correct my son’s actions and their downstream implications, the force
I used would not be justified but in fact condemned by Sub-section 2,
is this not correct?
Section 59 as it stands today:
Domestic discipline-
(1) Every parent of a child and…every person in the
place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of
correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the
circumstances.
The proposed re-write or replacement for Section 59:
Parental Control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent
of the child is justified in using force if the force used is
reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another
person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage
in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage
in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to
good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies
the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Cases Prove Child Abuse Not Being Protected by Section 59
Three cases of assaults on children over the past fortnight have proved that the claim that section 59 is protecting child abusers is totally false.
A Hawkes Bay woman faces a jail term for taking to her son with a wooden spoon and leaving him with 4cm welts. A Tauranga mother who admitted she slapped her 10-year-old daughter about the face and body at least five times to discipline her for back-chatting has also been convicted of assault.
And yesterday, an Invercargill mother was convicted of assault of a child after she used the child’s folder to hit him across the arms and used her open hand to hit him across the buttocks. The boy received extensive bruising to his hands, arms, lower buttocks and upper thighs.
“Section 59 did not protect these parents – and nor should it have,” says National Director Bob McCoskrie. “But what these cases do show is that the current law is working.”
“These assaults are quite obviously not reasonable – and are quite different to light smacks which over 80% of NZ’ers support as being appropriate for the parental guidance and correction of children. Kiwis understand the difference between reasonable correction of a child and child abuse.”
Mr McCoskrie says these cases prove it is time to ditch the Bradford ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and start tackling the real causes of child abuse – family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and stress.
“A ban on smacking is simply a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse,” 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
20 April 2007 – The Dominion Post – Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
Smacked kids hurt animals says MP
MARTIN KAY – The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007
Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.
In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader – who is in coalition with Labour – cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.
About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as “spanking, slapping or hitting”.
Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill, which removes the statutory “reasonable force” defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.
Mr Anderton said the study showed that people “emotionally damaged through violence” were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.
His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used – which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates – was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research “wasn’t anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was”.
Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture.
“What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren’t smacked.”
Supporters of Ms Bradford’s bill say it will remove the protection for parents who thrash their children. Opponents say it will criminalise good mothers and fathers.
The bill is set to pass comfortably with support from Labour, the Maori Party, National MP Katherine Rich, NZ First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne.
19 April 2007 – Libertarianz Party – Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
Thursday, 19 April 2007, 2:42 pm
Press Release: Libertarianz Party
Anti-Smacking Bill Reveals Liars, Fence-Sitters
“It is heartening to see John Key take a stand on the anti-smacking bill by refusing to meet with Sue Bradford. But what he hopes to gain by a wording change to the bill is unclear as we already have legislation outlawing assault on children,” said Peter Osborne, Libertarianz Social Welfare Spokesman. “Then again, changing the wording to the bill will also allow John Key to do what he does best; compromise and fence sitting.”
He says, “The only good thing to come from the anti-smacking bill is that it has shown us what bare faced liars Helen Clark and Sue Bradford are. Prior to the public outcry both Clark and Bradford were clear that this bill outlawed smacking of any kind. When they realised the unpopularity of their interference into our lives they both changed their spin. Of course the bill remains clear: the Police will be forced to arrest good, loving parents for smacking their children.”
Mr Osborne continues, “People must question why, with the ever increasing political interference into our private lives, assaults and murders of children are becoming more vicious and common! Libertarianz understands only too well that it is because of the insidious New Zealand welfare system. When people are paid systematically to do nothing; to aspire to nothing, their lives are altered from a future of possibilities and aspirations to an easy option of subsidised nothingness. In the guise of ‘helping’ people, politicians have created a system which brings out the worst in many.”
In conclusion Osborne says, “Libertarianz believes that if people are left to peacefully live without the burdens and interference of the state then human resourcefulness will allow everyone the opportunity to improve their lives and to strive for the best within themselves. What a wonderful environment that would be for raising children! Our constitution would ensure that the Bradfords, Clarks and Keys of this world would have no power to erode the freedom that is ours by right.”
“It’s Enough to Make you Vote Libertarianz!”
ENDS
19 April 2007 – Scoop coverage of Section 59
Here is a summary of some press releases this year in relation to Section 59.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.
“I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.
“The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they’ve got a major problem with the current wording.”
Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.
“But there’s no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.
“That is the first step towards finding some common ground.”
Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won’t criminalise parents.
“If Labour really believes that ‘light smacking for the purposes of correction’ will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to ‘lightly smack for the purposes of correction’.
“The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.
“So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let’s get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.
“For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table.”
ENDS
17 April 2007 – Stuff – Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
Greens happy to talk to Nats over smacking
by MAGGIE TAIT – NZPA | Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Green Party MP Sue Bradford has welcomed National leader John Key’s call to get together to talk about her bill to change the law around smacking.
However the Government response was cooler.
In a speech today Mr Key said he would like to talk to Prime Minister Helen Clark and Ms Bradford about her controversial member’s bill.
The bill changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of “reasonable force” against assault on a child.
Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals for smacking children but supporters say the aim it will only stop people using the defence for serious assaults against children.
Mr Key said most MPs wanted:
**To prevent violence against children being protected by the defence of reasonable force;
**not to criminalise good parents who occasionally gave their children a light smack;
**to lower the threshold for what was considered acceptable physical discipline.
Ms Bradford said she was “absolutely delighted” Mr Key saw the issue as important.
“I welcome very much his offer to play a constructive role in the debate,” she said.
She made her own offers – to talk to National’s caucus and to organise a meeting for Mr Key, herself and a few groups like Plunket, Barnardos, Save the children and Unicef.
“I’d like to do both those things, I’d like to make that offer back to Mr Key,” she said.
Ms Bradford said she was willing to move on her position “if there’s anywhere to move” but would not accept defining a level of violence against children.
National MP Chester Borrows previously proposed an amendment to allow parents to use limited force to correct their children.
Ms Bradford said she could not see why there needed to be any defence in the law for assaults against children.
“I want to remove the defence of reasonable force which allows people a defence when they assault their children that is not available when they assault other adults. That is different from creating a new offence of smacking which is what my opponents have painted this as.”
Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope said Mr Key’s comments about where he stood on the issue were confusing and vague; “but do appear to show that his position now mirrors that of the Government”.
Mr Benson-Pope said Mr Key and National had scaremongered about the bill rather than properly debate it.
“I want to assure John Key that the Government would not support any measure that would criminalise good parents,” he said.
“It’s now up to John Key to put his money where his mouth is and prove to the country that he and his party are serious about addressing child abuse in New Zealand, and that it’s not just another case of him shifting his position to suit the audience and trying to get back into the news.”
United Future leader Peter Dunne said Mr Key’s call for multi-party talks was sensible.
“A common ground discussion between parties might just be able to bring together a package that can gain the support of the vast majority of Parliament and I, for one, would be keen to be involved in such a process,” he said.
Mr Dunne said the talks should be for parties, not lobby groups, and the bill put off until they were held.
Debate on the bill is to be held on May 2. At this point it has the numbers to pass.
Mr Key later said that he would take Ms Bradford up on both her offers.
“If there’s some common ground that would be a very positive step forward.”
Mr Benson-Pope said he was willing to meet and Mr Key said he would contact him to arrange a meeting.
Mr Key did not accept the criticism that his comments were confusing.
“I think they were extremely clear – we spelled out the three points,” he said.
“I think it’s an indisputable fact that the law will make criminals of parents that lightly smack their children for the purposes of correction – something that both Labour and the Greens publicly say they don’t want to happen.”
Mr Key said the bill had to change and National was happy to work with Labour and the Greens on that.
17 April 2007 – Family Integrity #223 — Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases
17 April 2007 – Family Integrity #223 — Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases
Greetings all,
Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.
The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the horse crop as their “poster girl” to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be: because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently “let off” by the courts when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.
This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.
First, the pro-repeal lobby (Bradford and her mates) only ever look at the actions of the parents toward the child: in this case, the mum gave the boy six of the best with an 18 inch bamboo pot-plant stake and later two or three strokes with the riding crop. They do not look at the wider context of family history, events leading to the corrective action, the results, etc. (The jury did…that’s why she was acquitted so quickly.) We all would be horrified to hear of a parent striking a child in this way FOR NO REASON. So Bradford and Kiro and Clark and Edridge et al all play on this and always completely ignore the context of the disciplinary actions. One must suppose that to them, whatever the child has done can in no way justify a disciplinary smack, not ever, not for any reason, no matter how light the smack, no matter how horrible and damaging the child’s actions, no matter how reasonable the force used. This is precisely the tact taken by the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child in a comment on this issue they published in June last year (see http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo). This is a modern philosophy that has very little support or currency among parents anywhere in the world. That is certainly what Labour and the Greens are finding out here: 85% of Kiwis do not agree with a ban on smacking children for corrective purposes as part of the parenting tool kit.
Second, if the Swedish experiment is any indication as to why this philosophy is pushed so vehemently by virtually ALL government departments and virtually ALL so-called child and family welfare groups (virtually ALL of whom are also heavily funded by the state), it is because this philosophy CAUSES family dysfunction. As family dysfunction increases, so does social dysfunction. A chorus goes up, “Why doesn’t somebody DO something?” Up step the state agencies and those groups funded by the state: social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers plus all their secretaries and office staff have vested interests in seeing the dysfunction continue and increase, for it means more money for them. Such bureaucracies ALWAYS tend to grow, for their focus very quickly becomes one of self-preservation rather than working themselves out of a job by finding permanent solutions to the social problems they were supposedly set up to solve.
Third, Bradford and her mates are strongly implying that they think the juries in such trials, 12 of their peers, are thick as bricks or somehow otherwise intellectually deficient and unable to tell the difference between “reasonable force to correct” and “abuse”. Or they are simply saying they don’t like the decision made by the juries. These things are implied, but what Bradford and co are really trying to do is impose their own philosophy on everyone else by saying that juries should not have to decide such things, that the law should always clearly rule any use of force, regardless of how light or reasonable, outside the law if that force is used for the purpose of correction. What Bradford has never told us is why she so hates the perfectly natural idea, one practised for thousands of years, of parents correcting their children.
Fourth, the one group solidly against this bill is parents. Contrary to what Bradford and Kiro claim, parents are not clamouring for the “right” to beat their children…how ridiculous can you get, Bradford. Parents are proclaiming that they have natural duties and responsibilities toward their children and resent the state – especially a radically feminist and childless Prime Minister and an even more radically feminist Sue Bradford of the highly dysfunctional lifestyle track record – parents resent the state and thoroughly unqualified people like Clark and Bradford interposing themselves between parents and their children claiming they have to protect the child’s rights from being denied and trampled on by the parents.
This denigration and bullying of parents by the state has to stop. Only parents will ever love and be as committed to their children as they routinely are…certainly Clark and Bradford and state social workers have little to offer children in the areas of love and commitment. Parents also have most to lose by this legislation: their own children, their own family harmony and peace, their own authority within their own families and over their own children to correct, train and discipline using any degree of reasonable force. This Bill is clear evidence of the state claiming for itself the posterity of us all, our children, and wanting the best shot at determining the future by indoctrinating our children in its schools and allowing only its agents (police and social workers), not the parents, to force them to behave in certain ways approved by the state.
The Present Debate
I’ve cut and pasted three items below.
The first is a blog from July last year revealing details of a pending court case which will not happen until November 2007 apparently. This involves the Timaru riding crop lady and an older son in a separate incident in which she is again being charged with assault.
The second item is a news story from last Friday about this very court case. Note how different the two accounts are. The first apparently is based on a chat with the Timaru lady herself, the second is based on the testimony of the son.
The third item is one blogger’s go at knitting the two together….and this is the scary part: it looks as if the Police and the Justice System are being manipulated by CYFS and maybe the Labour-led Government for the purely pragmatic ends of achieving their political social-engineering agenda. Truth and justice are quite possibly being trampled upon for the higher “good” that our “ever-so-wise” and “benevolent” leaders in Parliament have determined we need, even though we are apparently too thick to see it for ourselves.
There is clearly something going on with this Bill, for Labour has revealed that they are particularly committed to it and prepared to take a lot of very damaging hits (sustained criticism from media, disapproval of voters, the embarrassment of trying to push it through urgency and then trying – and failing – to make it a Government Bill) if only they can secure its passage into law.
And here is where the debate has gone off topic: smacking is a peripheral issue. This bill will criminalise parents using reasonable force – any force – to correct their children, thus prohibiting the most basic expression of their authority: the use of reasonable force. If you have no ability to use force, you have no authority, for you cannot enforce anything. Police and the courts would be reduced to making suggestions only if they could not use force (arrest, fines, imprisonment) to enforce the laws. The use of force is basic and inseparable from authority.
In addition, since the word “correct” is not defined in NZ law, it can be made to mean a huge range of things including any attempt by parents to train or discipline or improve or coach their children. Why is Bradford so vehemently against parents doing such things? And forbidding the use of any reasonable force is not just a ban on smacking…it is totally illogical to ban what is reasonable, and since “reasonable force” is also undefined in law, it can surely apply to any effort by the parents to impose, force, their will upon the child, however they might attempt to do this: time out, restrain, threaten, withhold affection or privileges, grounding, argue, yell and scream, humiliate, emotionally manipulate, negotiate, demand, appeal to conscience or religion or tradition or culture, etc. This effectively forbids any imposition of parental requirements or prohibitions upon children, unless one of two things can be established: the role of parents is to impose their best set of standards and attitudes and understandings upon their children; or the role of parents is to merely care for their children’s physical needs and impose as little moral guidance upon them as possible unless the children have agreed or have given their permission.
Bradford’s Bill appears to be totally committed to that second option. This is precisely what Bradford and Clark mean when they talk about children being given the same rights as adults. Certainly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) is pushing this idea of children being considered as individuals separate from their families, with their own rights which will be proclaimed, defined and defended by the state against those who are most likely to deny the child those rights: the child’s parents.
Conclusion
Anyway, please do not make any judgements about the latest media and blog-land revelations and discussions of the Timaru riding crop lady’s situation: we may well not have the full facts until the end of the year, after the trial. But we will get the facts; and they already promise to be a lot more complicated and involved than we’re likely to read in the media’s sensationalised pulp.
Please also do not assume that we or anyone else is holding the Timaru lady up as a sterling example for us all to follow, encouraging us all to go out and buy a riding crop to have handy. I know she would not wish her life’s story and family context on to anyone else. But do recall that in the original riding crop court case, the jury unanimously acquitted her within one hour of deliberation without her or any other witness saying one word in her defense: the prosecution did all the talking! Many people are striving to clarify the facts of this case (facts that Bradford, Murry Edridge of Barnardos, Kiro, Pillay and others steadfastly and creatively obscure rather than elucidate). They strive to make the facts clear because they feel she is being unfairly, maliciously and unjustly caricatured by the repeal lobby for their own political agendas, and not for the good of her, her family or the many other families whose peace and security and integrity will most definitely be threatened by Bradford’s Bill. And the press demonise her and misreport the facts for the low-life purpose of creating sensational headlines to artificially boost sales.
And don’t forget that the real issue is the state usurping from parents their natural authority over their own children. This will of necessity deliver to the state and its agents the only legal authority to correct children by using any degree of force, these state agents being the police, social workers and to a lesser degree, school teachers. (Though have you heard that in the UK, school teachers have re-gained the authority to use force with children not just in the classroom, but on the streets as well? It is a very logical step in the totalitarian agenda to gain complete control over “our” children since they are increasingly considered to be “the nation’s” children).
post has been updated 6pm
The woman who was acquitted in court of physically disciplining her 12-year-old son with a riding crop was visited by her six-foot 16-year old son in January. He kicked his stepfather in the head and broke his mothers nose. The last time the mothers nose was boken was when she was assaulted by an ex-husband who was charged with assault. However the police have not laid assault charges against the boy, despite his parents pressing for this.
The mother had access rights after the son was told to live with his father because she was deemed an unsafe parent by Child, Youth and Family, because she disciplined the younger one with a riding crop and a cane.
But this older son is a brat. Since living with his father he has had free access to alcohol and party pills and, according to his mother, has been breaking into cars and has appeared before the youth court on 13 charges.
As well as breaking his mothers nose, and kicking his stepfather in the head with his size 15 shoes (his stepfather has a serious head injury, remember) he repeatedly spat at them both while travelling with them in the car. The stepfather had to physically restrain the boy, and pull him off his mother. He was punching her and repeatedly calling her a f…….. arsehole, f….. whore, and a few other things. So she physically disciplined him and his stepfather tied his feet together to stop him from kicking him in the head again, before calling the police, who handcuffed the swearing boy and took him away.
Now, this mother along with her husband is facing an assault charge laid last month after the boy went to CYFS the following week. That is why it is now in the media. Perhaps CYFS, or its supporters, has released information on the case.
More sadly, CYFS Dunedin manager Peter Guest has now stopped the younger sons unsupervised access to his mum specifically because of the charges. He did this just two days before the holidays, without even telling the boy. The boy was going to stay with his mum over the holidays next week. Instead he found out from his mother that he is to stay with his grandmother, who was the approved CYFS caregiver that physically disciplined the boy and gave him Risperdal and Ritalin.
Guest is also trying to take the woman’s daughter away from her again. The mother has complained to the police and laid charges of assault against her son but has been told that she has to prove that she was assaulted before the police would do anything. This is despite the fact that CYFS did not have to prove charges against the parent, and that case is before the courts.
Perhaps the ACC claim form for the broken nose may be proof.
Anyone with half a brain can now find out this woman’s name through the media,as one paper has named her on the assault charge and then linkedthe two cases together on anohter report – but her name is permanently suppressed by the courts. For obvious reasons I have not provided links to the papers concerned.
Do you think the older boy should be charged with assault?
Item Two
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a10.html Horsewhip case mum accused of new attack
The Timaru Herald | Friday, 13 April 2007
The woman acquitted of assaulting her son with a cane and horsewhip, in a case cited as a justification for the anti-smacking bill, is to face trial on charges of assaulting another of her sons.
The woman and her husband appeared in Timaru District Court yesterday. After depositions, the man pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure. His wife pleaded not guilty to three charges of assault and one of assault with intent to injure.
Justices of the peace Kevin Dey and Margaret Cosgrove remanded the pair on bail to April 30 for the setting of a trial date.
In May 2005 a Timaru jury found the woman not guilty of two charges of assaulting a son, then aged under 14. She admitted giving him “six of the best” with a cane for misbehaving at school, and striking him three to four times with a horsewhip after an incident in which he waved a baseball bat at her partner.
Yesterday, her teenage son told the court he was punched, kicked and hog-tied by his stepfather after he agreed he had no respect for him.
All the charges arose out of a journey the three made in January last year. The night before the trip, it had been agreed they would leave at 9.30am, but the following morning the man was shouting and swearing because he considered they were running late, even though they were on the road at 9.15.
The man swore at the boy frequently and the boy responded the same way. At one stage his mother suggested he had no respect for the man. When he agreed he did not, he said his mother slapped and punched him in the face at least three times.
A few minutes later, he punched his mother once on the temple. The man stopped the vehicle and got out. The boy got out too, and started walking away. The man punched him with a closed fist. The boy was also kicked in the chest and kidneys.
The man told his wife to get some tape from the vehicle. He bound the boy’s arms and taped them to his leg.
The man told his wife to call the police. Instead, she suggested they take the boy to Geraldine police station. It was closed, so they decided to drive to the Timaru station.
The boy managed to call his birth father on his cellphone, but his mother grabbed the phone.
His mouth was filling with blood from his bleeding nose. He spat it out, further angering his stepfather.
The vehicle stopped and the boy ran into the road, in front of a vehicle driven by Geraldine man Colin Hobbs. Mr Hobbs told the court the boy’s arms were tied together. There was blood around his nose and mouth.
Mr Hobbs saw the man kick the boy two or three times and then grab him by the scruff of the neck, pulling him toward the vehicle, and put both his knees into the boy’s ribcage.
“He was putting everything into it,” he said. The woman did nothing to stop the assault.
When Senior Constable Graeme Walker arrived at the scene, all three family members were visibly upset. In an attempt to defuse the situation, he took the boy home and sent the couple on their way.
NB this post has been updated
As some people are expecting me to write about the riding crop mum of Timaru (and I wish people would stick to the facts and desist from calling it a horse whip), who was back in court on assault charges, I may as well.
As readers will know, I was a aware of the charges, in fact I blogged about them in July last year. That’s how long it has taken to come to court. Public Address blogger Russell Brown criticises my earlier post:
the account of the third-party witness, who has no reason to lie, directly contradicts the account relayed by Dave Crampton on some key points. Hopefully he’ll now stop depicting these people as victims of their terrible children and think a bit harder about the violence in this family.
Actually, the account of the witness doesn’t contradict my key points. Thats because the witness didn’t witness the woman assaulting the boy. Neither did he witness the boy punching his mother in the face and breaking her nose at the start of this whole sorry episode. He witnessed the father assaulting the boy, and that father pleaded guilty to assault, as he should.
What Russell Brown hasn’t mentioned is the following, much is (apparently) in the summary of facts but not in the media report he relies on: The teenager (aged 16 or 17) was on an access visit. He punched his mother in the face and broke her nose prior to all this happening, resulting in his mother getting ACC. He was was charged with assault but Police decided not to pursue it and let him off with a formal warning, reasons of which are suppressed. Charges were laid against the mother but police withdrew the charges when they found out what her son had done, but the crown relaid them after what was most probably political and CYF pressures after the boy got his warning.
Furthermore, the man who witnessed the stepfather’s assault on the boy has said that the woman didn’t exactly do anything to stop the assault – but would you if your nose had just been broken? Russell has criticised the woman, alleging that she is a bad parent for not doing anything to stop the beating, even questioning why she did not call out for her partner to stop. [This has since been refuted in comments by the woman herself].
Russell has criticised the actions of both parents, but not the teenager. Why? I don`t condone the actions of the stepfather either, but if Russell’s son was in the care of a former partner or CYFs and came home on an access visit, broke his nose, spat blood in his face, assaulted his partner, kicked him and swore at him, what would he do – give him a hug and play this http://www.amplifier.co.nz/video/17174/welcome_home.html on his stereo?
16 April 2007 – Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill – CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0704/S00195.htm CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks
Monday, 16 April 2007, 4:27 pm
Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill
Press Release Monday April 16th 4pm.
CIR Petition Passes Half-Way Mark In Only 6 Weeks
CIR Petition coordinator Larry Baldock announced today that the petition to force a referendum on the Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill had passed the halfway point towards the required target of 300,000 signatures.
As of today, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill’s Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
The law allows twelve months to collect the required 300,000 signatures.
“To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this the fastest petition gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act, and needless to say all of us involved are very encouraged by the support we have received from all over the country,” he said.
“While the supporters of Sue Bradord’s HOME INVASION, ANTI CORRECTION, ANTI-SMACKING Bill continue to argue about the accuracy of all the polls that have been conducted that show an overwhelming majority of opposition to her bill, we can confidently say we are going to be able to require a referendum to be held at the next election. There will be no disputing that result and politicians would be unwise to continue to ignore the voice of those who elected them into parliament,” said Mr Baldock.
Ron Law: Section 59 for Dummies
Friday, 13 April 2007, 10:09 am
Opinion: Ron Law
Section 59 for Dummies: A Critique of Sue Bradford’s So-called ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
By Ron Law
Contrary to popular belief, Sue Bradford’s so-called ‘anti-smacking’ Bill has already been defeated by the parliamentary process.
Having been the recipient of numerous “anti ‘anti smacking’” or “anti ‘pro beat your kids’” emails I thought it prudent, as a risk & policy analyst, to look at what all the fuss was about so I could make an informed decision myself.
My first port of call was to the Parliament website to look at the Bill being debated and in Hansard, the transcripts of the debates. What I discovered surprised me and is quite odds with what is being debated in public through the media. On Campbell Live on Monday 2nd April, for example, the nation was told that the Bill before parliament was simply about the repeal of section 59 from the Crimes Act; but is it?
Section 59, one of forty-five defenses in the Crimes Act, is about domestic discipline and states;
s59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
Bradford’s short private member’s Bill simply proposed the abolishing of the above section 59. The “Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill” passed its first reading in Parliament in 2005 and was referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee where over 1,700 submissions were received and in response the Bill was totally rewritten.
So what was changed in the Bill referred back to Parliament and now supposedly the subject of intense public debate? Well, actually, nearly everything; the beginning bit, the end bit, and most of the meat or tofu in the sandwich. The public appears to be debating the old version of the Bill that has already been rejected by parliament.
The Bill before parliament now will make it illegal for parents to smack (or use other reasonable force in the circumstances) in order to discipline or correct their child, but it will permit parents to smack their child for a variety of other reasons. So the Bill being debated is not anti-smacking at all… it doesn’t even shift the goal posts, it just turns the goal posts around! It replaces one excuse for smacking with another.
The Bill being debated in parliament now is compared to Sue Bradford’s original ‘anti-smacking’ Bill {{with comments in curly brackets}}.
Bradford’s Original Bill
Bill Being Debated By Parliament
Clause 1 Title
This Act is the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2005.
This Act is the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2005.
{{Sue Bradford’s wording in the title “(Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline)” was struck out by the Select Committee and replaced with the words “(Substituted Section 59)”.}}
Clause 2 Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
{{No changes made.}}
Clause 2A Principal Act amended
This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961.
{{No changes made.}}
Clause 3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children.
The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act 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.
{{Bradford’s wording “abolish the use of reasonable force by parents as a justification for disciplining children” was struck out by the select committee and replaced with “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.”}}
Clause 4 Domestic discipline
Clause 4 New section 59 substituted
Section 59 is repealed.
Section 59 is repealed and the following section substituted:
59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of;
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
{{Bradford’s attempt to prohibit smacking to discipline children by repealing s59 was trumped by a substituted section that appears to allow smacking to control naughty children. The only other clause in the Bill is a technical matter and that was amended too.}}
One set of legal defense criteria needing interpretation by lawyers is to be replaced by another set of legal defense criteria also needing interpretation by lawyers. The new subsection 3 says subsection 2 prevails over subsection 1. So, if there is doubt over whether a parent’s smack or use of reasonable force was corrective or preventative or incidental to good care and parenting, the corrective interpretation must prevail. Does this mean that where there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be seen to be guilty of planning correction for the child so must be convicted. Reasonable doubt usually acquits but this Bill means that reasonable doubt might require a conviction. Is there legal precedent for that?
Now
Proposed
59 Domestic discipline
(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.
59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
Both the current ‘bad’ section 59 and the new ‘good’ section 59 allow the use of force in relation to parenting that is “reasonable in the circumstances.”
In other words, if the Prime Minister is to be believed, the Bill, supported by the Government, will still permit parents to ‘thrash and beat’ their children… it’s just that they’ll have to learn how to do that with the goal posts turned around.
The difference is that, as the ‘bad’ law currently stands, force is only able to be used to discipline/correct children, whereas in the proposed ‘good’ law it will be perfectly legal to use force that is reasonable in the circumstances to protect them or to prevent them from being naughty. What is not clear is whether that includes preventing similar naughty behaviour in the future, surely the objective of discipline.
Now:
A smack on a naughty child’s bottom accompanied by the (corrective/discipline) words, “That’s for being naughty” is currently legal, but could soon be illegal.
Soon?:
A smack on a naughty child’s bottom accompanied by the (preventative and ‘incidental to good care and parenting’) words “stop being naughty” is currently illegal, but could soon be OK as that means that you are exercising good care and parenting skills by preventing naughty behaviour.
So, in the New World, Mum Bloggs, has a young child who is pulling items off the shelves, throwing them on the floor, and yelling for a big bag of lollies. Currently, in attempting to save face for herself and the child, she might say to the child, “If you don’t stop that naughty behaviour I will smack you when we get home.” The child continues being naughty, so Mum bites her lip, cuts short the shopping trip, takes the child home and ‘corrects/disciplines’ the child with a smack on the bottom. Soon it could be illegal to do that.
However, soon she will be able to say to the child in the supermarket, “I am going to smack you now to prevent you from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence (eg; destruction of property),” and/or, “I am going to smack you to prevent you from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour,” and/or “Given that 80 percent of New Zealanders believe that smacking is a tool that a normal parent should be able to use incidental to good care and parenting, I am about to perform a normal parenting task, called smacking, that is intended to stop you being naughty,” and smack the child there and then in the heat of the moment.
So, what’s changed? Well, nothing really, except mums and dads will now have to rehearse how they hold their tongue and what they say when they shame their child and themselves in public as a result of the child’s offensive or disruptive or criminal behaviour.
Of course, they could always reward their child’s offensive or disruptive behaviour and shut them up by giving them those obesity inducing lollies that the child wanted in the first place.
Discipline is a wider concept than physical punishment. Discipline involves the use of a variety of techniques or strategies with the aim of teaching the appropriate way to behave. Physical punishment is one discipline technique. Others include explanations, praise, role-modelling (showing by example), distraction (particularly for young children), withdrawal of treats or privileges and removing the child from the situation (‘time-out’). The use of force in any of these circumstances would now be illegal.
If you send your child to their room for time out for offensive or disruptive behaviour and they refuse, will it be reasonable in the circumstances to take hold of them and forcibly take them to their room? If not, then what protection does the Bill provide if someone then claimed that you had used force?
The defense team in court would argue that you legally used reasonable force in the circumstances to prevent offensive or disruptive behaviour; the prosecution would argue that you illegally used force to discipline or correct offensive or disruptive behaviour.
A question that society needs to address is, “should it be lawful in ANY circumstance to use ANY force (however that might be defined) to manage one’s child? If the answer is yes, then surely our parliamentarians should define what is/is not acceptable force.
Perhaps the Prime Minister addressed the core of the issue when, having bagged opponents of the Bill as people wanting to “thrash and beat” their children, she went on to say, “The issue is how to empower police so that they can get a conviction where someone is clearly beating a child.” I doubt that even the Prime Minister’s most bitter opponents would disagree with her on that. Let’s state that in the purpose of the Act.
Perhaps the Police aren’t the only ones requiring a Code of Practice; maybe Parents do too! Perhaps parents need guidelines as to what is acceptable/unacceptable force in given circumstances. Let’s say that the use of reasonable force excludes the use of things like belts, canes, hosepipes, jug cords, pieces of wood, horse crops and closed fists. Let’s say that the use of smacking with an open hand is/isn’t acceptable force ‘in the circumstances.’
There are two debates taking place. Parliament is debating one Bill, and the public is debating a Bill already archived in the history books. The fact is that the so-called ‘anti-smacking’ Bill does not repeal section 59 as believed. No one appears to win with the proposed changes; apart from lawyers. The proposed changes don’t even shift the goal posts. All they do is turn the goal posts around and create confusion.
*************
Ron Law – Risk & Policy Analyst, Juderon Associates (Juderon@gmail.com)
4 April 2007 – CYFSWATCH NZ – Unchecked, uncorrected – are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?
Unchecked, uncorrected – are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?
April 4th, 2007
As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ
Unchecked, uncorrected – are you getting the picture, Sue Bradford?
Wednesday, 04.04.2007, 07:55am (GMT12)
Bad kids make unhealthy adults
5:00AM Wednesday April 04, 2007
Unchecked youthful bad behaviour creates later health risks, a long-term study has discovered. Photo / Greg Bowker
Unchecked antisocial behaviour in childhood leads to poor health in later life, new findings from an internationally-acclaimed long-term New Zealand study show.
The latest results from the Otago University study, which has followed 1000 people since they were born in Dunedin in 1972 and 1973, has found links between antisocial behaviour and poor physical health in adulthood.
The findings, a collaboration between the Dunedin research unit and colleagues at the University of London, appear this week in the American journal Archives of General Psychiatry.
Unit director and paper co-author Professor Richie Poulton said other studies had shown that childhood antisocial behaviour led to adult crime and mental disorder, but this was the first study to show a link to poor adult physical health.
That included injury, sexually transmitted diseases, dental disease, reduced immune function, and an increased risk of heart disease.
The study has tracked 526 males through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.
The most recent assessments were done when they were 32.
Boys whose antisocial behaviour persisted into adulthood were more than three times as likely as others to have symptoms of chronic bronchitis and gum disease, 2.9 times more likely to show markers for later heart disease and stroke, and 2.2 times more likely to have the herpes virus.
Males who exhibited high levels of antisocial behaviour as children, but reduced this behaviour in adulthood did not have the same level of poor health, said Professor Poulton.
“You’re talking about kids in the sandpit at preschool fighting and bullying each other, and by 13, these kids are converting cars and by 18, they’re bashing people and raping people.
“That’s the sort of development of this hard core antisocial behaviour.
“It’s early onset and persistent – in order words, there’s a whole bunch of kids who are naughty during childhood but they don’t persist. They grow out of it.
“We’re talking about the 10 per cent of males who are identifiable early, with a whole bunch of risks, and who continue to behave in an antisocial way over their life.”
Professor Poulton said these findings were consistent with other indicators of poor health, such as being in a low socio-economic grouping.
The findings could help the justice and health systems, as reducing antisocial behaviour early could help combat future crime and violence, and reduce the overall health burden.
“You have this hard core of 10 per cent males, and then you’ve got the 25 per cent who exhibit antisocial behaviour during childhood but grow out of it.
“It’s the real tough test – if you want to intervene early, which ones are the ones that are going to go on [to offend in adulthood]? We’re really at the pointy end of that particular research endeavour.”
4 April 2007 – Maxim – Think again: family violence
4 April 2007 – Maxim – Think again: family violence
The campaign against 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the “anti-smacking Bill”, arouses strong feelings. Those who support the Bill draw attention to New Zealand’s violent culture, and our damningly high rates of child abuse. It is natural to feel that something ought to be done, even if it is just a gesture; a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like the Kahui twins occurring and to tackle our culture of violence. We should, we must, do that. But this Bill will not achieve it.
Ms Bradford and the Prime Minister chime together that the Police will use their discretion and leave good parents and families alone, however, the Bill will still put good loving parents on the wrong side of the law and leave them open to investigations and prosecution. In the process it will undermine parents’ authority over their children.
Child abuse is already illegal. We have laws which punish family violence already. This Bill would criminalise “reasonable” corrective force such as the light smacking used by thousands of Kiwi parents as a disciplinary technique. The best research available, Dr Jane Millichamp’s, suggests that such light smacking (differentiated from beating, or hitting, or child abuse, which is illegal), is not harmful to children, and most Kiwi parents would agree.
The common argument the supporters of the Bill are mustering, is that the Bill will “send a message” that violence against children is unacceptable. But that message is already sent by laws against abuse.
If criminal law “sends a message”, it is about the kind of behaviour we as a society find wrong, unacceptable, and criminal. Things like murder, rape, and child abuse come into that category. By passing the Bill, we would be putting light smacking into the same category, something to be prosecuted in a Court.
Our politicians are right to be concerned about family violence, but they should not be passing a law that they do not want the Police to enforce simply to “send a message”. There are speeches and soap-boxes and press releases and TV cameras for that. Law is for crime, and for behaviour that is harmful and criminal and should be prosecuted.
Further, the Bill would do nothing to address the root causes of child abuse and family violence. UNICEF has said what some of the risk factors for abuse are: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. The Bill does not tackle these risk factors for family violence.
The State and the Police should certainly intervene when there is crime or severe dysfunction, domestic violence and child abuse. There are decisions under the current law that we don’t all agree with, and they show the need to improve and tighten the situations where parents can use discipline, but banning all reasonable correction goes too far and good parents should be left alone.
We are all attracted by a vision of the kind of society we can be; a country without violence, where children are safe. But after we have all agreed on the destination, it comes time to chart the path to take us there. Our MPs could have begun a deeper look at why our society is violent, why families and lives are broken, and the risk factors for family violence. Instead, they are choosing to make thousands of parents into criminals and license interference in good families. That is a wrong turn, the wrong path, and the wrong way.
3 April 2007 – theeverlastingman.blogspot – The Thin End of the Wedge?
It seems the anti-smacking bill that is being fronted by Sue Bradford may end up passing. She certainly seems to think she has the numbers. There are two drawbacks to this though:
1) The failed efforts by Labour to introduce it under urgency, and separately as a government bill, indicate a degree of worry by the ruling cabal. They KNOW it is burning them up. Problem is, it will linger until the budget, and more than likely beyond. What a shame……..
2) This bill could potentially do more to undermine the pro-abortion movement than any other form of legislation. How so? First, if Sue Bradford’s bill passes, it make all forms of violence and contact against children illegal. Now, in the courts, unborn children have been granted the same rights in law as born children. There has been legal precedent for an individual being prosecuted for deliberately harming an unborn child.
This situation exists because in 1981, in response to a complaint, the Courts declared that the unborn child had no legal statutory rights and it also ruled that the decisions of certifying consultants were immune from the law. Naturally, many thought this unsatisfactory and the issue went to Parliament where the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion bill, embracing nine separate acts, went to a third reading and passed by 40 votes to 26. It was the first legislation in the Western world to re-introduce legal protection for the unborn child. Thus, unborn children in NZ have rights enshrined in law.
If s59 is repealed, be ready for a lawsuit against a DHB or abortion provider, on the grounds of legal precedent and demonstrable violence towards an unborn child. Such court action may or may not succeed, but if it did, watch all hell break loose.
Sue will really be spitting then, because she will be responsible. Good on ya mate!
Posted by MrTips at 4:16 PM
2 April 2007 – Society for the Promotion of Community Standards – Exaggeration by ‘anti-smacking’ bill supporters
Monday, 2 April 2007, 10:32 am
Press Release: Society for the Promotion of Community Standards
For immediate release ……. Political comment
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
2 April 2007
Gross Exaggeration by ‘anti-smacking’ bill supporters
Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill supporters are guilty of gross exaggeration and deliberate distortion of the known facts in their frantic efforts to convince parents that ‘nanny state’ knows best when it comes to the discipline of their children. They argue that of the many parents who have been charged with assaulting their children, large numbers have wrongly escaped conviction by successfully appealing to s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Such persons should not have been allowed to “get off the hook” by successfully appealing to the defence of “reasonable force” and juries in such cases got it wrong. They ignore the facts that s. 59 defences for assault are extremely rare (about 1.4 cases per year). The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Helen Clark, has publicly stated that to allow parents facing charges of assault against their child to use a s.59 defense, including cases where juries have acquitted the accused, is “silly” and “ridiculous”. Over 80% on New Zealanders, based on consistent poll results, disagree with Helen Clark’s position. They do not want s. 59 repealed and they oppose Bradford’s flawed bill.
Examples of gross distortion of the facts include the case of a 41-year old Hawkes Bay man, who was acquitted in a jury trial in the Napier District Court in 2001. Cabinet Minister, Hon. Mark Burton, misrepresented this case in his recent speech to parliament supporting Bradford’s bill by referring to a man [not named] who was charged with having assaulted a child with a “plank of wood” and got off under a s. 59 defence. This is such a high profile case that anyone who has been following the s. 59 debate would have known that he was referring to the Hawkes Bay man whose 8-year son’s bruised bottom was pictured in the Hawkes Bay Herald (now called Hawkes Bay Today). Many of Bradford’s supporters have incorrectly referred to the use of a “4 by 2” by the Hawkes Bay man.
The SPCS contacted Mr Burton’s office and pointed out to his staff that the Minister, like many of Bradford’s bill supporters, has again, not told the truth. Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and her Deputy, the Hon, Michael Cullen, have both incorrectly referred to this case as involving a plank of wood, as have the Green Party and Sue Bradford.
Actually, the man used a small piece of wood, the same dimensions as a child’s ruler (dimensions recorded in the Hawkes Bay Herald reportt) NOT a “plank of wood”. Neither of the Dominion Post reports (22/02/01 and 21/12/01) refer to a “plank of wood” or a “4 by 2″ wooden plank of wood.
The father disciplined the 8-year old boy by smacking him on his clothed bottom, as punishment for stealing $40 off an adult friend of his, and lying about it (the boy denied stealing the money). The boy had been given a number of warnings about stealing and lying by his father, and knew what the consequences would be for his wrongdoing. The father desisted from his smacks when the boy started to cry.
The father had attended a few parenting courses in the Hawkes Bay over the years prior to the incident and had genuinely sought help in the upbringing of this boy who proved quite unruly after being transferred to his care, in the course of an ongoing custody battle for the boy involving his ex-female partner.
Parent-Line, a well-respected child advocacy agency, had advised him at one of these courses that corporal punishment was OK to use when appropriate. He had tried all methods other than corporal punishment to bring to an end the boy’s stealing and wilful lying, before the incident of ‘assault’ for which he was charged by the police. All other methods had been to no avail.
In court he was charged with assault under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act (1961) – :assault against a child under 14 years of age”. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers after his lawyer Tony Welsh, was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the true facts he set before the jury. The abrasions over parts of the boy¡¯s buttocks and back had been caused by an accident he had had some days earlier while roller-skating. He had fallen off his skates onto a hard abrasive surface while being dragged on his skates by other children.
It was argued that the distinctive grazing and ‘pot marks’ revealed in photographs shown to the jury could not have been created by the actions of the father in smacking his boy with a tiny piece of wood. The boy confirmed the cause of the injuries (grazes etc.) as the accident.
The doctor conceded that injuries from the accident would have left the boy’s buttocks very vulnerable to further bruising should he have had further force applied to the sensitive areas some days after the accident. The father candidly admitted in court that he had forgotten about the earlier accident and certainly did not appreciate that his son’s buttocks would have been so vulnerable. As the boy had been shunted from one parent the other in the course of the custody battle, it appears that the father may not have been privy to all the facts concerning his son’s prior injury before the smacking incident.
The father was acquitted by the jury who were quick recognise that the attempt to link the injuries with the level of force used in discipline, as put forward by the prosecution, could not possibly be established without reasonable doubt; and that other events (surrounding the accident) could be established beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused the injuries.
The prosecution case fell apart based on the facts, not on the basis of a s. 59 defence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that there was any intention on the part of the father to deliberately cause injury to his son. Those who knew him the father recognised that he is a very mild-mannered man.
Mr Mark Burton has not told the truth in parliament. However, the continuing misrepresentation of this case serves the interests of Sue Bradford’s supporters, to ram home this bill against the wishes of over 80% of New Zealanders.
The Green Party, while admitting to the SPCS that the implement used was not a “plank of wood” or a “4 by 2” have continued to use the distorted shock value of this case to push their flawed bill. They regularly refer to the man using a piece of timber or a hunk of wood to “thrash” and “assault” his boy. What utter piffle! The Prime Minister should be ashamed that she and her Ministers have been telling so many lies about this case.
ENDS
2 April 2007 – TV3 – CampbellLive
2 April 2007 – TV3 – CampbellLive
Watch Campbell Live here
The Smacking Debate
The “anti-smacking” bill – anti violence or anti human rights? Who should decide how best to discipline your children? A Campbell Live special.
Monday, 2 April 2007, 10:42 am
Press Release: Family Integrity
Naked Grab for Power
The Bill to repeal Section 59 is a clumsy and naked grab by the state to usurp the natural authority of parents over their own children.
It forbids parents from correcting their own children! Correction, changing bad behaviour and attitudes and language into good, is a core responsibility and expectation of all parents.
This Bill goes way beyond banning smacking. It removes parental authority. It forbids parents from correcting their own children. Correction of children is then legally authorized only by the agents of the state: the police, teachers, social workers.
This is home and family invasion on a gross scale. It is doing massive political and administrative violence to families. By interposing itself between parents and children, by rendering children’s parents impotent, it is doing great psychological and emotional damage to children. When parents are under constant threat of legal action by both Police and CYFS, the stress hampers their parenting and renders it less effective.
This Bill will combine with the law of compulsory school attendance to give the state political machine the major role to legally control and influence the children of this country. Why? Because the Bill transfers from parents to the agents of the state the authority to correct children; and the schooling system serves as the state’s major tool of social engineering, a channel for political propaganda.
And once we give the state bureaucrats our children, we might just as well give them everything else…they will come for it soon enough anyway. Once we make the big compromise with regard to our children, nothing else matters any more.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
ENDS
2 April 2007 – tv3 – United Future proposes amendment to ‘anti-smacking’ bill
United Future proposes amendment to ‘anti-smacking’ bill
Mon-02-Apr-2007 1:17pm
United Future is proposing an amendment to the smacking bill to ensure parents can still to put a child in time-out without attracting police attention.
The bill by Green MP Sue Bradford would remove the defence of reasonable force if parents are arrested for assaulting their children.
United Future’s Gordon Copeland claims the bill will make parents criminals when they simply pick a child up to take them to a ‘naughty mat’.
He will put forward the amendment the next time the bill is heard, which may be tomorrow if the Government decides to adopt the legislation as its own.
2 April 2007 – The Press – Smacking bill takes a hit
By COLIN ESPINER
From feats of foreign policy to hubris at home, such is the lot of a prime minister.
When Helen Clark left for the United States two weeks ago it seemed Sue Bradford’s bill removing a legal defence of reasonable force for those charged with assault on a child was set to sail through Parliament.
Now, supporters of the legislation are simply hoping to stagger across the line, battered and bruised by an onslaught of negative public reaction to the so-called anti-smacking bill.
For all the outrage and the lobbying, the thousands of emails and the threatening telephone calls and dark threats against the children of one MP supporting the legislation, the bill is still almost certain to pass.
This is because Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party, New Zealand First MPs Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton, and United Future leader Peter Dunne have made up their minds to vote in favour. If anything the level of vitriol over the bill has made them even more resolute.
But calculations are being done across Parliament about the level of political capital the bill’s supporters are using up on this one. The Greens will probably escape unscathed since their voters are firm supporters of the bill anyway. But Labour electorate MPs in particular are really being asked to take one for the team.
How has it all gone so bad so fast? How have Labour and the Greens managed to snatch near-defeat from the jaws of a sound majority?
The simple answer is that the bill’s promoters and supporters relaxed after the Maori Party pledged to vote for it, securing its majority through Parliament. They took their eye off the ball and allowed opponents to dub it the anti-smacking bill and claim it would criminalise law-abiding parents.
Of course, this won’t happen. Police will use their discretion, as they do at present, and prosecute only those who have committed a serious assault on a child.
Smacking is already illegal – there is simply a defence under Section 59 of the Crimes Act if parents are arrested and charged with assault. That almost never happens, except when a parent is brought before the courts for beating their child with a riding crop or a piece of hose pipe.
Presumably, most people would want such parents prosecuted. However, public trust in the police is not high at the moment, and the public probably view assurances that the police would use their intelligence and judgment on any prosecution under the law change with some suspicion.
There is no point in the Government and its support parties blaming the Opposition for whipping up hysteria over the legislation. It has only itself to blame. The bill should never have been sold as anything more than a minor amendment to the Crimes Act – a sensible, international best-practice move to close a loophole that allowed child abusers to escape prosecution.
Instead, the Government has ended up taking on the vast majority of blue-collar New Zealand; Kiwi battlers with large mortgages, two jobs apiece and a couple of irascible brats who occasionally get a clip around the ear, and who do not want the Labour Government in their living rooms.
It seemed to take Labour a while to realise this. The Government has appeared smug in its conviction that most of the opposition to the bill was coming from a small but noisy minority, which according to Michael Cullen is led by Right-wing fundamentalist Christians who want the right to beat and thrash their children.
There may well be such people at the vanguard of the fight against the bill, but lumping the majority of opponents in with religious zealots is not smart politics and will only inflame voters further.
There are signs the Government is starting to panic. It tried to find enough support to push the bill through under urgency but its support parties were not keen. Now it is talking about making the bill a Government motion to enable it to push it to the top of Parliament’s order paper and hasten its progress.
Private member’s bills are only debated once a fortnight, which, added to the three-week Easter recess, would push the bill’s passage into mid-May.
That’s Budget time, and the last thing Labour wants is for its legislative showpiece to be overshadowed by wrangling over the Bradford legislation.
There are risks associated with taking over the bill. Labour’s support parties will not like it, seeing it as a bid to subvert the normal democratic process. It also removes any ability for the Government to blame the Greens for the legislation at a later date.
Labour is so closely associated with this bill that making it a Government motion is unlikely to inflict any more damage on it.
The Government appears to have two choices now – persuade Bradford that the political climate has got too hot for this legislation or shove it through quickly. The loss of face associated with a backdown is likely to be too great for Labour, however, and it has probably come too far to turn around now.
Instead, it is pinning its hopes on the public’s usually short memory when it comes to unpopular legislation, citing examples such as the anti-smoking legislation, prostitution law reform, and civil unions – all of which were unpopular at the time but now largely accepted.
This might work, but it might not. The difference with these other laws is that the Government was able to specify a group of people who would benefit manifestly from the law change – same-sex couples, prostitutes, non-smokers who wanted to drink in bars. It could also argue that it made no difference to most people.
On the Bradford bill, proponents seem torn between arguing that it will provide shelter for children from abuse and claiming that it will have little impact at all. It is also a topic perfect for political exploitation by National at the next election campaign. It fits neatly into the nanny state folder and plays to the public view that Labour has a social-engineering agenda.
Some senior Labour MPs are privately angry that the party has been forced to take such a hammering over a bill not even in its name at a time when it can ill-afford such hits. They had wanted some clear air to let the dust settle after last year’s furore over the pledge card expenditure and the embarrassment over MP Taito Phillip Field.
This week does not look any better for the Government. The long-running commission of inquiry into police conduct is due tomorrow and is expected to be severely critical of police culture. Labour will be worried that it could get caught up in the wider public backwash from such bad news.
Police are also likely to release their decision on whether to lay charges against Field this week. If the MP is charged that will reflect badly on Labour, despite the fact that he is now an independent MP.
For the Government, the Easter recess cannot come fast enough.
2 April 2007 – nzherald – I’m not pro-smacking, it’s just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows
2 April 2007 – nzherald – I’m not pro-smacking, it’s just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows
< a href=”http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10432090″>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10432090
I’m not pro-smacking, it’s just a flawed bill, says Chester Borrows
5:00AM Monday April 02, 2007
Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill has divided the nation. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Time is against him and the numbers are against him, but National MP Chester Borrows is still hopeful he can muster support for his amendments to Sue Bradford’s “anti-smacking” bill.
On Wednesday, the first of Mr Borrows’ amendments to the controversial legislation was defeated 63-58. When debate resumes MPs will consider Mr Borrows’ next amendment, which seeks to permit a light smack with the hand, causing a trifling and transitory impact.
Ms Bradford’s bill, if passed, will strike down a provision under section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows parents to defend themselves from an assault charge by saying they were using reasonable force while disciplining their child.
The debate could resume as early as tomorrow if, as expected, Labour adopts the Green MP’s private member’s bill as a Government measure. Mr Borrows is hoping two New Zealand First MPs who support the bill will be made to follow the lead of party leader Winston Peters, who opposes it, and that they could bring some Labour MPs along with them.
Mr Borrows’ main hope is that Ms Bradford’s bill remains her concern rather than the Government’s. That would see debate on it resume in early May, during which time he hoped the Maori Party could be convinced to withdraw its support. “I believe in the process; the process is that if you make a strong argument that people may listen,” Mr Borrows said.
“It may sound a little naive, but people may decide to find some conviction and decide that if they are going to be a parliamentarian that they weren’t sent here to sit on their hands.”
The debate has catapulted Mr Borrows, a first-term MP for Wanganui, into the national spotlight. Raised in Nelson, he spent 24 years in the police before becoming a lawyer.
“I have prosecuted people for beating their kids, I have considered section 59 and how that would apply to situations,” Mr Borrows said.
“I have probably done more to protect children in this sort of area than anyone else who is in the Parliament, and I don’t want to see it trivialised.”
Mr Borrows served as a police officer in Auckland, Wellington and Nelson, before becoming a sole charge officer in the South Taranaki town of Patea.
A crucial point in his journey to Parliament was becoming a detective and investigating a series of child abuse cases.
“That experience has been life-changing, and made me want to make things better for victims of crime.”
It has also made more hurtful the comments from some supporters of Ms Bradford’s bill that by opposing it, Mr Borrows supports the hitting and abusing of children. “I think I’ve got quite a strong understanding of the nature of abuse, how it works within the heads of victims and how it works in the heads of offenders. I don’t like that label, I don’t think that’s fair.”
Mr Borrows, a 48-year-old father of three, also resents any assumption that he supports smacking.
“I have never advocated smacking. I don’t want to be labelled the pro-smacker. What I am is the defender of parents and children. This whole debate is about whether or not parents who smack their kid should be liable for prosecution.
“It’s not about whether smacking works, and it’s not about whether good parents smack and bad parents don’t. It’s solely about whether parents who do smack their kid should be liable for prosecution.”
2 April 2007 – Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.- Bradford’s Bill Supporters Guilty of Distortion
Monday, 2 April 2007, 9:42 am
Press Release:
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
Press Release
30 March 2007
Bradford’s Bill Supporters Guilty of Gross Distortion
MPs supporting Ms Bradford’s flawed anti-smacking bill have been guilty of grossly exaggerating the facts in order to try and convince the New Zealand public that many people, who should have been (in their view) convicted of child abuse, have “got off the hook” by appealing to the defence of “reasonable force” found in section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961).
For example, the case of a 41-year old Hawkes Bay man, who was acquitted in a jury trial in the Napier District Court in 2001 was misrepresented by Cabinet Minister, Hon. Mark Burton, in his speech in parliament supporting Sue Bradford’s bill. Mr Burton argued that too many people had successfully used a s. 59 defence to avoid prosecution for child abuse and referred to a man [not named] who was charged with having assaulted a child with a “plank of wood” and got off under a s. 59 defence. This is such a high profile case that anyone who has been following the s. 59 debate would have known that he was referring to the Hawkes Bay man whose 8-year son’s bruised bottom was pictured in the Hawkes Bay Herald (now called Hawkes Bay Today).
The SPCS contacted Mr Burton’s office and pointed out to his staff that the Minister, like many of Bradford’s bill supporters, has again, not told the truth. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, and her Deputy, the Hon, Michael Cullen, have both referred to this case as involving a plank of wood, as have the Green Party and Sue Bradford, despite the fact that they must know the true facts by now.
The man used a small piece of wood, the same dimensions as a child’s ruler (dimensions recorded in the Hawkes Bay newspaper report) NOT a “plank of wood”. Neither of the Dominion Post reports (22/02/01 and 21/12/01) refer to a “plank of wood” or a “4 by 2” wooden plank of wood.
The father disciplined the 8-year old boy by smacking him on his clothed bottom, as punishment for stealing $40 off an adult friend of his, and lying about it (the boy denied stealing the money). The boy had been given a number of warnings about stealing and lying by his father, and knew what the consequences would be for his wrongdoing. The father desisted from his smacks when the boy started to cry.
The father had attended a few parenting courses in the Hawkes Bay over the years prior to the incident and had genuinely sought help in the upbringing of this boy who proved quite unruly after being transferred to his care, in the course of an ongoing custody battle for the boy involving his ex-female partner.
Parent-Line, a well-respected child advocacy agency, had advised him at one of these courses that corporal punishment was OK to use when appropriate. He had tried all methods other than corporal punishment to bring to an end the boy’s stealing and wilful lying, before the incident of ‘assault’ for which he was charged by the police. All other methods had been to no avail.
In court he was charged with assault under s. 194(a) of the Crimes Act (1961) – :assault against a child under 14 years of age”. He was acquitted by a jury of his peers after his lawyer Tony Welsh, was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the true facts he set before the jury. The abrasions over parts of the boy’s buttocks and back had been caused by an accident he had had some days earlier while roller-skating. He had fallen off his skates onto a hard abrasive surface while being dragged on his skates by other children.
It was argued that the distinctive grazing and ‘pot marks’ revealed in photographs shown to the jury could not have been created by the actions of the father in smacking his boy with a tiny piece of wood. The boy confirmed the cause of the injuries (grazes etc.) as the accident.
The doctor conceded that injuries from the accident would have left the boy’s buttocks very vulnerable to further bruising should he have had further force applied to the sensitive areas some days after the accident. The father candidly admitted in court that he had forgotten about the earlier accident and certainly did not appreciate that his son’s buttocks would have been so vulnerable. As the boy had been shunted from one parent the other in the course of the custody battle, it appears that the father may not have been privy to all the facts concerning his son’s prior injury before the smacking incident.
The father was acquitted by the jury who were quick recognise that the attempt to link the injuries with the level of force used in discipline, as put forward by the prosecution, could not possibly be established without reasonable doubt; and that other events (surrounding the accident) could be established beyond reasonable doubt, to have been caused the injuries.
The prosecution case fell apart based on the facts, not on the basis of a s. 59 defence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that there was any intention on the part of the father to deliberately cause injury to his son. Those who knew him the father recognised that he is a very mild-mannered man.
Mr Mark Burton has not told the truth in parliament. However, the continuing misrepresentation of this case serves the interests of Sue Bradford’s supporters, to ram home this bill against the wishes of over 80% of New Zealanders.
The Green Party, while admitting that the implement used was not a “plank of wood” or a “4 by 2” have continued to use the distorted shock value of this case to push their flawed bill. They regularly refer to the man using a piece of timber or a hunk of wood to “thrash” and “assault” his boy. What utter piffle! The Prime Minister should be ashamed that she and her Ministers have been telling so many lies about this case.
ENDS
2 April 2007 – New Zealand National Party – Winston’s choice: NZ First or Labour First
Winston’s choice: NZ First or Labour First
Monday, 2 April 2007, 8:07 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Winston’s choice: New Zealand First or Labour First
Winston Peters has a very important choice to make on the anti-smacking bill on his return from overseas, says National’s Shadow Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee.
2 April 2007 – Family Integrity — Naked Grab for Power
Naked Grab for Power
The Bill to repeal Section 59 is a clumsy and naked grab by the state to usurp the natural authority of parents over their own children.
It forbids parents from correcting their own children! Correction, changing bad behaviour and attitudes and language into good, is a core responsibility and expectation of all parents.
This Bill goes way beyond banning smacking. It removes parental authority. It forbids parents from correcting their own children. Correction of children is then legally authorized only by the agents of the state: the police, teachers, social workers.
This is home and family invasion on a gross scale. It is doing massive political and administrative violence to families. By interposing itself between parents and children, by rendering children’s parents impotent, it is doing great psychological and emotional damage to children. When parents are under constant threat of legal action by both Police and CYFS, the stress hampers their parenting and renders it less effective.
This Bill will combine with the law of compulsory school attendance to give the state political machine the major role to legally control and influence the children of this country. Why? Because the Bill transfers from parents to the agents of the state the authority to correct children; and the schooling system serves as the state’s major tool of social engineering, a channel for political propaganda.
And once we give the state bureaucrats our children, we might just as well give them everything else…they will come for it soon enough anyway. Once we make the big compromise with regard to our children, nothing else matters any more.
As a general rule, prime ministers shouldn’t mess with private members’ bills. And normally they don’t.
Private members’ bills which deal with matters of morality are usually big trouble. Prime ministers usually have enough of that heaped on their plates without putting up their hands for more by taking sides on something provoking strong emotions.
To then take the step of wielding prime ministerial authority to direct how MPs should vote on what many people believe should be a conscience issue is to invite a public backlash.
Despite the already overwhelming opposition to the so-called anti-smacking bill initiated by Green MP Sue Bradford, Helen Clark ignored those unwritten rules. Labour is copping the backlash.
National’s polling is apparently registering a voter exodus from Labour of astonishing proportions – so astonishing National is querying whether its figures are right.
Labour is confident that once the bill is passed, public fury will subside. The world did not end the day the ban on smoking in bars came into force. Likewise smacking.
But for now things are a mess. National is puzzled why Labour got itself embroiled in something with so little political upside.
It must be presumed Clark ignored the unwritten rules because of her personal conviction that smacking to correct a child’s behaviour is wrong and should be outlawed.
It is a principled stance. It would have been more so had she allowed her MPs to exercise their principles through a conscience vote.
But that would likely have condemned Bradford’s bill to defeat.
That has been Labour’s quandary. Labour may have acted out of principle. It has contrasted Clark’s “leadership” on the bill with John Key’s “expedience”. But saving the bill meant incurring damage. Labour has got caught in a vortex where its attempts to stem the damage have only made things worse for itself.
Leaving the bill to sink or swim on its own would have been the easy option, however.
Given National’s lead over Labour in the polls is solidifying and with Key nipping at her heels in the preferred prime minister stakes, Clark must have been tempted to wipe her hands of the measure.
She didn’t. In her view, the defence available under section 59 of the Crimes Act for those who beat their children had to be wiped from the statute books. That belief overrode Clark’s usual caution and previous intention for Labour to steer clear of legislation which might be mislabelled as “social engineering”.
There may also have been an element of defiance; a desire to show that while her minority Government may be constrained, it is not going to be browbeaten into paralysis.
However, Clark also weighed in behind Bradford’s bill because the public mistakenly regard it as a Labour bill. Labour was taking all the blame. The Greens were not.
The bill plays beautifully to their constituency. But that has meant the measure never got the intensive political marketing necessary when pushing controversial legislation through Parliament.
A belated selling job has seen Clark and other Labour ministers assuring parents they have nothing to fear from the bill and it is really targeted at altering the behaviour of those who “thrash and beat” their children.
However, as a One News-Colmar Brunton poll vividly illustrated this week, the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe the bill will help curb child abuse.
What the bill might or might not achieve on that front is anyway irrelevant to them. Their fix on the bill is very clear and very simple. The bill would stop them smacking their children when they are being naughty.
That was the bill’s original intent. That was modified by a compromise at the select committee stage. The current wording means a child could not be smacked for the purpose of “correction”, but “reasonable force” could be used to protect a child from harm, preventing a child from harming others or engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour.
As the Prime Minister keeps saying, the bill does not outlaw smacking. But it does mean parents cannot smack their children simply to discipline them when they are being naughty. Smacking can no longer be used as a behaviour-modification tool.
Much of the public opposition to the bill flows from the feeling “Nanny State” is barging through the front door of the family home.
The bill’s proponents can argue such a view is misguided. They can argue the state crept in under the floorboards long ago. They can argue good parents are never going to face prosecution for the occasional mild slap. But it is what people believe that matters in politics, not what politicians think they should believe.
For the great majority, the bill deals with a moral question – whether it is right or wrong to smack a child.
The expectation is that moral issues are conscience issues for Parliament and MPs would have a free vote. But that was dashed by Labour whipping its MPs into line.
Clark insists the Bradford bill falls outside the scope of conscience issues which, to use her description, are confined to legislation dealing with “sex, gambling and booze”.
If the bill is about curbing child abuse, it logically follows the Labour caucus should take a collective position on a measure combating a social problem.
But the public does not see it that way. It sees a governing party losing the argument and then whipping its MPs to get the result it wants.
In applying the whip, Labour immediately lost any claim on the moral high ground.
Its subsequent frenzied attempts to get the bill off the political agenda have only compounded public indignation. It flirted with urgency when it had little chance of securing it.
It is now contemplating turning the private member’s bill into a Government bill so it can be debated and passed next week.
The procedural sleights of hand are a measure of Labour’s desperate desire to rid itself of the measure. But the bill’s opponents see them as further examples of a cynical Government manipulating the system.
Even the sweetener offered by the Government – a Ministry of Social Development review of how the new law is working two years after it comes into force – will be treated with suspicion. There is no obligation on the Government to act on the review.
Ostensibly, Labour is waiting for Winston Peters to return from South America so NZ First has some input into discussions on whether the measure should become a Government bill.
Labour’s other support partner, United Future, has already expressed strong reservations.
But Labour does not have much choice. The furore over Bradford’s bill has already completely overshadowed Labour’s highlighting of social measures which come into force on April 1. These include the $10 family tax credit, a boost in the minimum wage and four weeks’ annual leave.
Labour cannot afford a repeat episode when Parliament resumes in May following the three-week recess in April. Why? Let’s just say two words – the Budget.
30 March 2007 – Manawatu Standard – Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
Smack could be reported to CYFS police tell mother
By GRANT MILLER – Manawatu Standard | Friday, 30 March 2007
Police have told a Feilding mum that if she is caught lightly smacking her children after Section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, she will be reported to the Child Youth and Family Service (CYFS).
“CYFS seems to have so much power,” said mother-of-eight Sandra Elliott.
She fears CYFS will treat parents who smack their children as child abusers.
Green MP Sue Bradford is promoting a bill in Parliament that will remove “reasonable force” for correcting children as a possible defence for assault.
Mrs Elliott rang Feilding police to clarify the effects of the bill.
She says she asked: “If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police – would you have to come out and investigate?”
The answer was yes.
Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.
Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.
She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that’s when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.
“That’s the bit that scared me – having CYFS on your doorstep,” Mrs Elliott said.
“I’ve got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.
“A light smack for correction is not abuse,” she added.
Police national headquarters spokesman Jon Neilson said there is a notification process that involves CYFS, but its involvement could depend on the seriousness of the incident.
He said it would be “difficult to say, categorically” if CYFS would be notified after a child is lightly smacked. Whether a child was frequently hit in the past would also be a relevant factor.
However, Police Association president Greg O’Connor said reported assaults on children would “almost invariably” end up with CYFS.
“If a parent admits to smacking a child, that’s clearly an offence. Even if a warning is administered, it will still be reported,” he said.
Under the existing police policy, reporting the alleged assaults would be “basically mandatory”.
Supporters of the bill argue smacking is already technically illegal. Removing S.59 will stop people from getting away with it.
Opponents argue the bill will criminalise loving parents and the state should not interfere.
“Our concern is that the political debate is taking place in a vacuum of understanding about what action police are likely to take on receipt of a complaint of assault,” Mr O’Connor said.
“Police are not going to go around looking for it,” he added.
Using their discretion not to report assaults could backfire on police, however.
“The first time a child is seriously hurt or worse following police inaction, I imagine there will be very strong policy about what police should do.”
29 March 2007 – Email from Larry Baldock
Hi everyone,
What a fantastic debate last night with some excellent speeches from our side. Most of those supporting the bill were contradicting themselves and appealing to emotion.
The announcement of a review after two years shows the Govt is not so confident that things wont go horrible wrong as we have been saying. Putting the review in the hands of CYFS and DWSD is like asking a fox to report on whether there have been any chickens stolen from the hen house!
If the law is passed we will have to look at setting up our own 0800 help line to receive complaints that we can carefully record so we can try and help those being affected. More about that later.
The link below is to a couple of speeches from the Wellington March.
What I saw of the Christchurch march on TV was great and Simon Barnett’s interviews was superb. What a great spokesmen he is for the cause.
After the debate last night we now know that it will be at least May 16th before the bill could have its final vote if it continues on its normal course. However if the PM makes it a Government Bill as being rumoured on the news, it could pass next week. This has been a constant changing scenario.
More update son signature numbers at the end of the week!
Warm regards
Larry Baldock
28 March 2007 – Ruby Harrold-Claesson – Bradford’s Bill will create new criminals
28 March 2007 – Ruby Harrold-Claesson – Bradford’s Bill will create new criminals
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 10:46 am
Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Bradford’s Bill will create new criminals
Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-law
President of the NCHR
In an attempt to ridicule the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Anne Else writes in her piece, “Get It Straight: Repeal Section 59 And Cut Crime”. She continues: “Wilful stupidity is really hard to deal with”. I agree with her 100 per cent.
Being a lawyer and researcher I usually use neutral, sober language, otherwise I would use Anne Else’s own words that she “has just managed to pull off a difficult feat. In a strong field of stupid statements, its [her] latest one on Sue Bradford’s Bill stands out for its utter idiocy.”
How can someone who wants to appear to be in his or her right mind equate smacking with child abuse? The research that she cites from The US indicates that “child maltreatment, which includes both child abuse and child neglect” lead to children becoming criminals. This research is not about smacking; it is about child abuse. (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171)
There are two very important historical Swedish sources that Swedish professor in Legal history at Uppsala University, Mats Kumlien, referred to in his PhD thesis (1994) on the subject “Upbringing and punishment”. The sources are Havamal and The Hälsinge Law.
Havamal says: He who lives lawless and without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever och laglös, han ärelös dör). A section in The Hälsinge Law says: He who lives without smacking, he dies without honour. (Den agalös lever, han ärelös dör).
Mats Kumlien showed historical examples of unpunished children who ended up as criminals. One mother was compelled to be present at her son’s execution, and he spat on her and accused her of not giving him a good upbringing ie she had not smacked his bottom when he did wrong.
Anne Else is certainly not aware of the errors in logic in her piece. “Repeal Section 59 and cut crime”, she writes. Well, the result will be the opposite. Repealing Section 59 will not cut crime but it will create young criminals and also a whole new category of criminals: the parents who take their responsibility and smack their unruly children when words and admonitions prove insufficient to correct their deeds or omissions.
In all human societies parents have – during the history of our different civilisations – smacked their unruly children. Had smacking been detrimental to children and turned them into criminals, then the world would have been full of criminals. Instead the great majority of people in the world are sensible, well-behaved and responsible people. The greatest problems with some so-called modern societies for eg Sweden, is that they have too many undisciplined children. Their parents have no control over them at home, their teachers have no control over them at school and very few adults have enough courage to talk to them when they display disruptive behaviour in public.
Here is a little more info. about the chaos that reigns among children and young people in Sweden: Yesterday, the newspapers published a news item about a school stabbing in Olofstorp, where I live and two of my children were pupils. According to Gothenburg Newspaper (Göteborgs Tidningen, GT) it started with a fight between two boys. One was kicked in his face! and another boy (16 yr old) intervened and stabbed the other 16 yr old in his leg. See http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.611855 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601 and http://www.gt.se/nyheter/1.613601. Please note that in 1988 Sweden enacted a law forbidding knives and other cutting weapons in public places, in schools etc.
The Swedish smacking ban did not create a peace-loving, non-fighting generation. Instead it has created societal problems with unruly and even dangerous children. The recently published UNICEF Innocenti report gives Sweden 15th place in family and peer relations. See http://www.unicef-icdc.org/presscentre/presskit/reportcard7/rc7_eng.pdf
If New Zealand wants to be at the forefront of civilisation then you should learn from the mistakes that have been made by Sweden – not strive to make similar mistakes.
Gothenburg, Sweden, March 28, 2007.
ENDS
28 March 2007 – Family Life International – Another non-smacking cause of child aggression
28 March 2007 – Family Life International – Another non-smacking cause of child aggression
Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 11:11 am
Press Release: Family Life International
PRESS RELEASE
A press release from Family Life International, New Zealand
Wednesday 28.03.07
New comprehensive US study shows yet another cause of child aggression that isn’t smacking
A new study in the March/April 2007 of Child Development shows that the more time that children spend in centre-based care before kindergarten the more likely they are to display aggressive and disruptive behaviours during later stages of development.
The study, led by Jay Belsky, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues and Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck University of London, focused on 1364 children who had been tracked since birth as part of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.
The study showed that teachers reported more frequent problem behaviours such as: argues a lot; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; and screams a lot from children who had been in day-care.
The study confirms the findings of research conducted in Canada last year which showed that children in day-care were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and research conducted in the UK in 2005 which showed that day-care was linked to “higher levels of aggression.”
“This research adds to a large and growing body of research which shows that child aggression and disruptive behaviours are not linked to smacking; contrary to the unscientific claims continually promoted by many supporters of Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill” says Family Life International media spokesperson; Brendan Malone.
In today’s edition of the NZ Herald the Prime Minister states that “New Zealand has it on its conscience that our rate of child death and injury from violence, including in the home, is appalling.”
“If the Government is really is so concerned with child welfare then why are they targeting loving physical discipline of children, when research clearly shows us that is has nothing to do with child violence?” says Mr Malone.
ENDS
27 March – The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford’s child discipline bill picked up by the government.
Government may pick up Bradford’s bill, predicts National
Posted at 7:46pm on 27 Mar 2007
The National Party says it would not be surprised to see Sue Bradford’s child discipline bill picked up by the government.
If that happens, the legislation could be passed before the Easter recess.
The government abandoned its bid to pass the bill under urgency this week, saying it believes it would have had the numbers but the bill was causing ructions within other parties.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen refused to comment when asked if the government might pick up Ms Bradford’s bill.
This would result in its being debated on usual sitting days, rather than the fortnightly members’ day, and its passing as early as next week.
National says it would be a cunning way of getting legislation off the agenda by passing it more quickly.
Bradford unfazed by delay
However, Green MP Sue Bradford says she is relaxed about the failure of the bill to pass this week.
Ms Bradford says that as long as the parliamentary support she has obtained for the bill stays solid she is happy to wait.
The bill passed a second reading by 70 votes to 51 on 21 February. Consideration of amendments began on 15 March when one clause was debated for almost two hours by 23 speakers. By the time the House rose for the day, only the name of the bill and its start date had been voted on.
May date
Because Parliament is in recess for much of April, the final vote will not take place until May. Opponents say will give them valuable time to lobby MPs.
National MP Chester Borrows says the government’s decision not to debate the anti-smacking legislation under urgency is a victory for his party. He says National’s position is vindicated by polling that suggests 83% of New Zealanders oppose the bill.
27 March – NZ Herald – Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law
27 March – NZ Herald – Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law
Michele Wilkinson-Smith: Bradford’s own people will lose most in smacking law
5:00AM 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.
Government ministers have clashed with opposition MPs in Parliament over Sue Bradford’s bill to change the law on smacking ahead of another debate on it tomorrow.
Although the bill might not go to a final vote before mid-year, campaigns against it peak tomorrow with a march on Parliament and another day of full page protest advertisements in newspapers.
Prime Minister Helen Clark, facing a barrage of questions in Parliament, voiced her strongest support so far for the bill.
“It is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking,” she said as opposition MPs insisted it did exactly that.
“I believe if this bill passes the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops, bits of wood and the rest of it.”
The bill removes from the Crimes Act the statutory defence of justifiable “reasonable force” against assault on a child.
Supporters, including Miss Clark, say smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years and cannot be banned because it already is.
Opponents say removing the “reasonable force” clause from the Crimes Act will turn parents in criminals if they even lightly smack their children.
National MPs accused Miss Clark of forcing her members to support the bill, and said she should have allowed them to exercise conscience votes free from party instructions.
“What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury through violence in the home,” Miss Clark replied.
ACT MP Heather Roy said the Government was overriding the view of a majority of New Zealanders and had no right to tell her, a mother of five, how to raise her children.
Education Minister Steve Maharey said the bill did not ban smacking and did not tell parents anything.
“It simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline their children,” he said.
The bill is in the middle of its committee stage, the only stage at which it can be amended.
National MP Chester Borrows want to change it and insert a section which would allow light smacking. His amendment is likely to be voted on tomorrow.
Ms Bradford is confident she has at least 63 votes to defeat the amendment. A majority in Parliament is 61 votes.
She believes support will hold at about that level through the committee stage and the final third reading.
National MPs have managed to delay progress on the bill, and are expected to run more time-wasting tactics tomorrow.
Now that the Government has given up trying to put it on the fast track, it might have to wait until June before it comes up for the third reading vote that will determine whether it becomes law.
Member’s bills can only be debated every second Wednesday when Parliament is sitting, and the three-week Easter recess is coming up.
