Just a quick note. A Facebook Group has been started, calling for the repeal of Section 59.
“Kiwis don’t want Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Law. Join this group to show your support for a repeal of this new anti-parental-authority law.”
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-smacking-law-one-year-on.html
Anti-Smacking Law, One Year On
One year ago, on 2 May 2008, Sue Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill passed it’s third reading. The bill had the numbers to pass, however the entire National party turned 180 degrees and all National MPs were forced to vote in favour of the bill.
Just hours before, John Key and Helen Clark had come to an agreement for a “compromise” on the bill. ACT Party leader, Rodney Hide had this to say, on 3 May:
“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”. – Rodney Hide: “Ammendment makes no difference”
The ammendment was the new subsection 4 of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, 1961, and reads:
(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
However, the ridiculous thing is that this “inconsequential” clause was already a part of the law in New Zealand, and applies to all cases where police are considering prosecution.
Sue Bradford’s bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes act
Criminalises parents who elect to lightly smack their child(ren) occasionally.
…Everyday mums and dads.The bill for repeal passes with
113 votes for. 93% of the members of Parliament. 17% to 32% of New Zealanders
Labour, National, Maori, Greens, Progressive, Peter Dunne (United Future), 4 members of NZ First
8 votes against. 7% of the members of Parliament. 68% to 83% of New Zealanders
ACT, Gordon Copeland (ex United Future), Taito Philip Field (ex Labour), 3 NZ First, Judy Turner (United Future)
And on 21 May 2008, the Governor General abandoned his duty of protecting New Zealand citizens from bad law that had managed to get through the parliamentary process – and gave consent to the bill becoming law.
On Thursday 21 June 2007, the law came into effect.
New Zealand has not forgotten this dark moment in her history. This will make itself evident at the 2008 election.
To read the rest and to make comments on this go to:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-smacking-law-one-year-on.html
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/05/timaru-herald-editorial-mouthpiece-for.html
Timaru Herald Editorial Mouthpiece for Anti-Freedom Government
By Simeon, with notes by Andy [A]
The Timaru Herald published an editorial today slamming the petition calling for a referendum on the “anti-smacking” law as a “a sideshow“. The editorial then goes on to say that Sue Bradford’s comment telling opponents of the law to “move on” is actually popular opinion.
But this article is wrong in the assumptions that it is making. Firstly it says that “National’s last-minute intervention that the police would not pursue inconsequential smacking took away much of the objection and the bill was easily passed.” No this took away NO objection to this legislation, if you look at recent polling then you will see that public opinion is very much the same.
In fact, just over a week ago, a small group of volunteers collected 5,800 signatures at the V8 Racing event in Hamilton. Ahem, sorry, what did you say? public opinion has changed? Don’t make me laugh. [A]
Next it says “But while the petition attracted 324,511 signatures, only 267,000 have been deemed valid, well short of the 285,000 to force the poll”. 267,000 is not far off 285,000 and is one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history.
“one of the largest petitions handed in in recent history.” – how much is this editor being paid? He’s just filling up paper with worthless points. It is a normal number of signatures to be submitted, and the audit is not bad news at all! Norm Wither’s “law and order” petition lost 60,000 signatures in it’s audit. [A]
Thirdly it says “But consider what has happened since the bill was passed. The worst fears have not been realised. We have not seen a procession of parents through the courts charged with assault in the name of child discipline — there have been just five cases. Nor have we seen the law preventing the most extreme cases, with children still dying or being badly injured at the hands of their parents.” That is five cases which did not need to happen. Five families have had unneeded police interference.
Of course “the worst fears have not been realised”. I have been saying this from the beginning. The Labour/Greens government knows it would be suicide to allow the police force to administer this draconian law to it’s fullest extent. No indeed, they will wait until (they hope) they get elected into Government again next year, and then will begin the regime of Government initiated home-invasion on thousands of good, caring family-homes. [A]
Fourthly it says “So what has happened? Until the research is done it is only guesswork to assume the legislation is producing behavioural change. Anecdotally, there appears to be greater awareness by parents of alternatives to physical discipline, which is a good thing.” We will reap what we sow.
Perhaps it is a good thing, but it doesn’t even begin to justify the introduction of such a anti-freedom law, against the will of the majority of the population (83%). [A]
Lastly it says “Politicians will welcome the prospect of no anti-smacking referendum at this year’s election. It would be a sideshow to the far more serious main event, and yet could also be a rogue element in terms of colouring voters’ intentions. It is time to move.” Yes that is true, Helen Clark and Sue Bradford will welcome no referendum at this election because if we have one everyone will be reminded at the ballot box about what Labour and the Greens have done. But no it is not time to move on because politicians are our servants not our masters.
Why are you lot so paranoid, so beside yourselves with concern at the prospect of a referendum being held? [A]
to comment on this go to:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/05/timaru-herald-editorial-mouthpiece-for.html
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/04/clerk-reports-on-petition-20000.html Clerk Reports on Petition: 20,000 signatures to go
“Smacking law petition fails to gather enough valid signatures” screams the headline on the TV3 news site.
NewstalkZB picks up the story, picking up on comments from Sue Bradford, the Green MP who introduced the Anti-Smacking bill. “The opponents of the “anti-smacking” law are being told to move on, as their petition calling for the repeal of the legislation change does not have enough valid signatures to force a referendum.”
Stuff.co.nz presents a confused story, claiming that the petition organisers have been dealt a “major blow”.
David Farrar at Kiwiblog tells it like it is.
“They needed 285,027 signatures valid signatures. They got 324,216 but a sample found around 11% were not able to be found on the electoral roll plus 1% illegible and 0.5% duplicates. This is about normal off mory.So their valid signatures were calculated as 269,500 so they need 16,000 more valid signatures which is probably 20,000 more total signatures to be safe.
I suspect the Government is nervous about having every voter reminded of the law they are primarily identified with, at the very point at which they are voting.”
Meanwhile, Bob McCoskrie doesn’t have any time for the media hype, and gets to the main point, which is:
“the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents.”
The Clerk of the House has disqualified 16,294 signatures – this comes as no surprise, despite the wild exaggerations from the mainstream media. In fact, this is a relatively low number of signatures to be crossed out, as we see in an excerpt from this article (23 Feb 08) from the Section 59 blog:
“In the last petition demanding a referendum (Norm Wither’s 1999 law and order referendum), almost 60,000 signatures were disallowed by the Clerks who check the validity of the signatures.”
“We have already collected an additional 20,000 signatures” says Larry Baldock in his Press Release, 29 April 2008, “We were always concerned about the hurdles to be crossed in the audit process, said Mr Baldock, and for that reason we continued collecting signatures after we handed in the 324,511 signatures on Feb 29th.”
Click here to download the petition form. If you haven’t already, sign it, get your friends and family to sign it, and then send it to the address on the bottom of the form.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/04/clearing-up-confusion-over-referendum.html
Clearing up Confusion over Referendum Process
As per my last post, there is obviously a level of confusion over the future of the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking Law. Below I have a copy of the Referendum Process from the Parliament website (you can download a PDF version by clicking here). I have added some comments to the chart. I’m just focussing on the top petition question,
“Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?”
Some people have been unsure of what the question for the Referendum means. It is saying, “should a smack be illegal?” And my answer, and the answer of the aproximately 70% plus New Zealanders opposed to this draconian home-invasion law will be a most definite NO.
Click here for a Press Release from Larry Baldock (Petition Organiser), where he comments on the issue.
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/04/referendum-scaremongering-from-media.html
Referendum Scaremongering from the Media
“Thousands of pro-smacking signatures invalid” – blares the headline on the NewstalkZB website. Firstly, it is absolutely normal in any petition, for a percentage of signatures to be declared invalid. Secondly, what is this reference to “pro-smacking signatures?” The question asked on the petition, “Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand” is as much pro-smacking as Sue Bradford is pro-smacking. The article continues, stating:
“It appears a decision on whether there will be a public referendum on the anti-smacking law will come down to the wire… …it has been discovered that thousands of the signatures are invalid and there may not be enough to reach the required level.” – NewstalkZB, 24 April
TV3 joins in the scaremongering, with the following statement:
“Opponents of the law that bans smacking are waiting anxiously to find out whether they have collected enough valid signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum.” – TV3, 24 April
Neither of these two statements are correct. The law states that, following the counting of the signatures, the petition organiser is granted an extra two months to collect the number of signatures which has been found to be lacking. In this case, the number of signatures lacking is estimated to be about 3,000. Larry Baldock will have a good buffer of signatures by now, and when the Clerk tells us how many signatures we are short of (or in excess of) the required number, it will not be a problem.
http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damned-lies-and-bureaucrats.htmlLies, Damned Lies and Bureaucrats
Cindy Kiro’s World of Half Truths and False Gods
“Violence breeds violence”, has become Cindy Kiro’s new mantra as she seeks to defend the recent law banning smacking. She has at her fingertips, no doubt, countless examples and case studies of families where children were thrashed and abused when young. Then, in adulthood, those children subsequently went on to acts of violence, lawlessness, and degenerate behaviour, including violent abuse of their own children.
Kiro is right. We didn’t need the sociological evidence or case studies to know that children grow up to walk in the footsteps of their parents. Parents who inflict uncontrolled, enraged violence on their children will produce children who are, either smashed in spirit and will as adults, or are equally lawless and violent as adults in their turn. But ironically this is also why Kiro is also completely wrong—or more to the point, naïve and simplistic.
She is only doing what all bureaucrats are forced into when they administer laws and regulations that are unjust and immoral: focus on superficial externalities that can be controlled and measured and administered. Since governments cannot change hearts and minds they are reduced to play acting with mere externalities. But they do so at at our peril—since the long and ignoble history of such hubris is that the problems only become worse, much worse.
As a result of Kiro’s half truths, now institutionalised into the New Zealand legal fabric where smacking a child for the purpose of training and correction has become a crime, expect a torrent of societal violence to pour down in the next thirty years. Of course by that time Kiro will be long forgotten, as will Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, except perhaps for their respective parts in a government to which historians are likely to attach the sobriquet of being the most corrupt and corruptible in New Zealand’s history.
But they will have been replaced with other, equally deluded, Athenian idolaters. Socialists all. Humanists all. Destroyers all.
Why am I so confident of this outcome—painful though it is to contemplate? Because Kiro is both right and wrong. She is right about the intergenerational connection with respect to violence (and the intergenerational connection of just about everything else—which is, of course, the way the Living God has made the world of men to operate and so it is and always will be the norm.) However, she is completely simplistic as to her definition of violence. Violence incorporates force of whatever kind—whether physical, verbal, emotional, or psychological.
There are two kinds of family violence—and they are worlds apart. Kiro has failed to discern this, or has deliberately decided to ignore it. The first is where forcible correction is administered to children by parents who are training and correcting their children, for the children’s sake, so as to change their hearts, minds, and wills. The second is where parents are disciplining their children for their own (the parents’) sake, out of anger, frustration, and selfishness. As stated above, these two are worlds apart. The outward actions may appear the same, but they are as different as water to hydrochloric acid.
In the case of the former—where discipline is for the sake of training the children—the rules and regulations of the home are clearly thought through and articulated to the children. Breaking the rules brings consistent juridical consequences, until the child is trained out of that behaviour. Discipline is never done in anger, annoyance, frustration, impatience, or temper. The voice is never raised. Regardless of the emotional stresses upon the parents, they too regard themselves as under discipline, and so control themselves to administer correction faithfully, fairly, and always for the sake of the child’s wellbeing. In this context discipline is never retributive. It is always and only corrective. When the behaviour changes, the discipline ceases—or moves on to other issues.
In this case, violence does most certainly not breed violence. It breeds the very opposite. It produces peace, self-control, respect, and ultimately a productive member of the community.
In the case of the latter, discipline is erratic, mercurial, tempestuous, filled with anger and frustration. One day the parent/adult might ignore a child’s actions because they are in a good mood. The next they explode and vent their wrath upon the little one for the self-same actions—because the child has done something to annoy them and they are in a bad, angry mood. In this context the violence is always retributive—it is a lawless act of retribution upon the child for the parent’s perception of hurt and damage to them by the child.
People who are particularly uncontrolled and narcissistically self-absorbed will not stop from pouring our physical violence upon their children, regardless of what the law says. Moreover because blood is thicker than water, family groups will always move cover it up. The new law will have the unintended effect of driving the violence underground—so that its very existence in a family will have already placed that family into the orbit of the criminal underworld.
In the case of the less physically violent, emasculated metrosexuals, family violence amongst self-absorbed parents is more likely to take the equally destructive form of parental temper tantrums, screaming, biting and caustic words, sarcasm, ridicule, and bitterness poured out upon the children. While the bruises may not be physical, the home environment will be likely toxic in the extreme, leading to the destruction of the child’s spirit. The consequence for the children will be growing up into one of two probable types: either the child will grow up mimicking the parents’ lawless, uncontrolled outbursts of selfish petulance returning evil for evil upon the heads of their parents and anyone else who crosses them. Or, beaten and cowed, they will grow up broken and brooding—damaged beyond repair.
Either way, within two generations their line will have assumed a criminal mindset.
Read more of this post here:
http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damned-lies-and-bureaucrats.html
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/02/sacha-coberns-column-slap-in-face-for.htmlSacha Cobern’s column a slap in the face for Deborah Morris-Travers
Sacha Cobern has this week sparked debate from those sensible people with commonsense, who believe smacking a child should be a valuable tool in a parents toolbox and that government have no business putting their sticky beak noses in our business. The fear that parents now have over the anti smacking law, has already led to many parents labeled as abusers for lightly smacking their kids and has undermined the authority of good parents all around the country.
I am aware myself of two cases of children telling on their parents and these two accounts haven’t hit the media like others have, probably because parents want to keep things secret for fear of being labeled abusers by do gooder socialists. There are bound to be more of these undisclosed cases.
Sacha’s piece has sparked a violent, incoherent, high minded and intellectually offensive outburst by a former minister of Parliament, Debra Morris-Travers, an employee of the State backed Barnardos, a former advocate for children but now an extension of the Labour Party propaganda machine.
“If anything, that side of the debate has been too earnest and intellectually-based and that’s why so few people seem to understand what has driven the law change.
The media’s refusal to give coverage to the evidence and research supporting the law change is the only reasonable argument for a lack of intellectual rigour in the debate”.
Morris-Travers contends that she practices what she calls “positive parenting” so by exclusion labels parents who smack negative and clearly criminal for “assaulting” their children by lightly smacking them.
In another poke at the average Kiwi she labels them as too stupid to understand the “intellectual debate” over the repeal of section 59, when it is clearly very simple, parents need to be able to correct their children’s behaviour with every reasonable tool possible. Nothing complicated about that.
Like Helen Clark she blames the media for it not revealing the facts supporting her case. The reason none have been forthcoming is that those “facts” do not exist.
Read both and then decide for yourself who is talking garbage and deserves a smack on the behind.
c Political Animal 2008
Sacha Coburn: Smack on the hand worth time in jail
I agree with Bob McCoskrie and Larry Baldock. Eight words which churn my stomach as I write them. When left-leaning, social liberals like me are forced to align with the fundies speaking in tongues and organising petitions, you know our little country at the bottom of the world has gone mad.
I want to smack my daughter. At least twice today I’m likely to threaten it and may even make meaningful preparations to carry it out. Send her to her room. Get the wooden spoon out of the drawer. Enough to be arrested for an attempted smack, I’d have thought. Is it wrong to fantasise about a night in the lock-up?
“You mean that in solitary I’d be by myself for 23 hours in a row?”
Smacking my son was a parenting strategy of last resort and was immediately effective when dealing with defiance and dangerous situations. I’ve never smacked in anger and never without issuing a final warning first. I’m a text-book smacker. Pin-up girl has a certain ring to it.
But now, with my precious Portia, aged 2 years 8 months, my tool box is looking a little empty.
“No,” she says. “I won’t put my seat belt back on.” Try reasoning, Aunty Sue B suggests. “If we crash, you’ll get hurt.”
“No, I didn’t.”
Try praising the good behaviour, says Aunty Cindy K.
“Mummy loves it when you wear your seatbelt.”
“No! I love Daddy!”
Wait out the bad behaviour, advises Aunty Dianne L.
Good idea until my phone rings: “Hello Sacha, are you coming to get your son from school today? It’s 5.30pm and the cleaners are going home.”
“Not yet,” I reply. “Just wearing Portia down, should be there by midnight.”
Scare her, suggests my guardian demon.
“If you don’t put it back on, tonight I’ll close your bedroom door and leave the light off.” Cue screaming, but still no seat belt. What kind of parental monster uses fear of the dark as a legitimate tool?
The problem for me is that I love the law and the democratic process. As a lawyer, I understand the benefits of obeying the law and the potential consequences of disregarding it. I want to parent within the law and I want to be able to use smacking as one of many parenting tools.
I’m a bloody good parent; well-read, patient, on the Board of Trustees even. I know that clothes driers are for clothes only and that I shouldn’t leave my child with the man next door who’s on bail awaiting trial for manslaughter. I understand the food pyramid and surely I get brownie points with the Greens for breastfeeding both babies past 12 months.
I don’t believe smacking is for every parent or every child. I don’t believe that it’s an effective tool once children get beyond four or five. I wouldn’t insist that you smack your child, but I don’t believe Parliament fixes anything by taking away my right to smack mine.
Sue Bradford told us that we had to stop treating our children as property. They are people too, with their own minds and their own rights. Illuminating stuff. But the police officer who pulled me over and asked why my child was wandering willy-nilly around the backseat didn’t buy it. I am apparently totally responsible for her well-being and behaviour, but not to be trusted when it comes to making parenting decisions about how to develop her sense of right and wrong.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the whole smacking debate is the lack of intellectual rigour evident on both sides of the issue. To continue the rhetoric about child abuse and smacking having any casual link is absurd – as all of us who were smacked-not-beaten as children can attest. And to suggest on the other hand that God gave us the right to smack is equally offensive – he also okayed some other pretty dodgy ideas.
The obvious victims remain. Children who are violently abused in their homes are no more protected than they were before the law change. But my own daughter is undoubtedly a victim too and our whole family suffers the consequences of her strong sense of self-above-all-else.
She has, in the past six months, learned that there are few sanctions I can impose on her that are meaningful enough to deter her from her intended course of action. She knows that if she screams loudly and for long enough she might not get her way but, by golly, there’ll be a flurry of action around her. In short, she has learnt that behaving badly works.
How ironic if, in years to come, the lack of corrective smacking in childhood is raised in mitigation of criminal offending.
* Sacha Coburn is a Christchurch businesswoman, lawyer and mother.
http://scottkennedy.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-smacking.html
More On Smacking
I know this is turning into a smacking blog, but the issue is on my mind at the moment.
Sarah and I went out collecting signatures again last night. Once again as per usual the overwhelming response was positive. The editorial in the Herald demonstrated how out of touch the ‘intellectuals’ are from the average New Zealander. People have not moved on. To put it bluntly people are pissed off. Sorry about the language but the expletives which are used about Helen Clark, Sue Bradford and the anti-smacking brigade when i go door to door are much stronger. We have not moved on.
There are of course some people who do not support what we do. Last night I had one of those ladies. “I never needed to smack my kids. It’s wrong and good parents don’t need to.” Oh the supreme arrogance. With one sweeping statement she writes of 80 odd percent of parents as incompetant abusers. Please people. If you didn’t need to smack your children it does not follow that other people will have the same luck.
Ok rant over. For now. But if you’ve got time, this is worth a read.
Blog from: http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/02/smacking-is-mothers-issue.html
A couple of days ago I passed a group of women sitting at an outdoor table at a cafe, having morning tea together and chatting. They were definitely mothers, as there were a number of strollers parked around them, and babies sitting on some of their laps. As I passed by, I happened to catch the waft of the conversation – something to do with smacking, not smacking often, but needing to do so sometimes.
It occurred to me last night after putting up the Cindy Kiro post, that this one issue – the anti-smacking bill – has woken up a segment of society that normally ignores politics. In all my years as a mother and talking with other mothers, I’ve found very few are interested in politics. However, every mother I have talked to recently knows about the anti-smacking bill, and very few of the mothers I have talked to are for it. Most are disturbed by the bill.
Mothers typically do not have the time to make their opinions known to the movers and shakers, so anyone that thinks this issue has gone away and will go away is blind or deaf to the mothers in the community around them.