The ACT Party placed this ad in the Sunday Star/Times supporting a referendum to overturn the anti-smacking legislation.
There are some positive comments from the resulting thread.
Read them here:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/02/act-gets-support-for-pro-family-stand.html
Cindy Kiro on Smacking being Violence creating Criminals
Cindy Kiro has an article in today’s Dominion Post that draws a rather long bow. She asserts that violence causes violence and implies that smacking is violence, therefore smacking creates violent individuals of the type that she has talked to in prison.
What I find even more disturbing than her tightly held belief that smacking is violence, is the statement that seems to come out of nowhere like a tourette’s expletive – “Punching a child in the head is not discipline and it may well kill them.”
What the!!!
Who is calling for the right to “punch a child in the head”???
Is Cindy on some kind of memory lane trip at this point where she remembers something horrible from her own childhood?
By putting that statement in her article, Cindy Kiro is directly implying that all of us who believe we need to be able to physically discipline our children (should it become necessary) and not be criminalised are potentially out of control child murderers that need to be dobbed in by our friends and neighbours.
Just what type of childhood did Cindy Kiro have?
Here is her article, if you can stomach reading it:
Read it here along with comments:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/02/cindy-kiro-on-smacking-being-violence.html
From:
http://davegee.blogspot.com/2008/01/nz-election-will-come-down-to.html
National is still considering its long-term stance on the anti-smacking debate. John Key helped the controversial bill become law, after agreeing to a minor compromise with Green party author Sue Bradford.
However, the party’s position is said to be wavering, following a 280,000-strong petition against the law, and the fact that a couple of parents have already found themselves in court over very minor cases of disciplining their children in public.
From:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/helen-clark-me-too.html
Last year, National Leader John Key was accused of being a “me too” man, and National accused of being ‘Labour-lite’ in terms of policy comparison with the Labour Party.
There seems to have been a turn-around on this though with Helen’s speech this morning basically mirroring Key’s speech yesterday in regards to youth and education.
Both leaders appear to be targeting troubled youth, specifically the age groups between 14 and 16.
As regards youth violence, I don’t think we can be too surprised: I really think it’s only going to get worse; the reason? The anti-smacking law.
Sweden banned smacking in the 1980s and their rates of youth violence have shot up dramatically.
At least two studies in Sweden were initiated in the 1990s because of societal concerns about increasing youth violence. One rationale for one study was that “There is also much evidence that our [Swedish] society has a growing propensity for violence” (Statistics Sweden, 1996, p. 5). Another study’s rationale began, “Since the mid-1980s, the
Swedish public has been increasingly concerned about juvenile violence” including “football hooliganism, excessive celebrations on Midsummer eve, acts of violence with racist and xenophobic motives, squatters’ actions, street fights between politically opposed groups, violence at school, and recurrent juvenile tumults at the end of summer vacations, between gangs
of Swedish or immigrant background, and skinheads and groups of young female ‘kickers’ . . . In light of this, it seems difficult to deny that the Swedish society in recent years has been hit by a wave of juvenile violence” (von Hofer, 1995, p. 1). Juvenile violence clearly appeared to be increasing during the 1990s according to Swedish social scientists, warranting studies to understand it.
Hopefully we will have a referendum will bring this subject to the fore again.
Please go to: http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/helen-clark-me-too.html
to make comments on this blog.
Some more good blogs:
http://thepauapalace.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/ear-flicking-dad-charged-with-assault/
http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2008/01/it-has-begun.html
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/smacking-law-referendum-likely.html
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/01/family-first-ar.html
http://swgaeib.blogspot.com/2008/01/cheese-is-12.html
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/child-abuse-is-not-funny.html
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-smacking-could-be-form-of-torture.html
Some good recent blogs to read:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/smacking_law_referendum_likely.htmlhttp://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/green-mp-to-keep-john-key-in-line.html
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/decent-people/
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/here-is-latest-count-on-petition.html
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2008/01/act-voters-and-libertarians-are-not.html
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-insult-your-readers-and-lose.html
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/decent-people.html
http://scottkennedy.blogspot.com/2008/01/christian-extremism.html
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=255
Sue Bradford wants Family First prosecuted for its weekend ads listing Police threats to parents. She claims Family First have spent more than the $50k in total that a referendum promoter can spend letting citizens know about a citizens initiated referendum.
This is the same Sue Bradford who thought the Government’s spend of $11.5m on propaganda for the Greens “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign was not enough to get the message across.
$50k today would not even launch a campaign for a new dog roll. Marketing experts say people need to see an ad six times before the topic starts to register in public consciousness, let alone understand any detail. Bradford knows that.
There’s a simple explanation for her screeching on this issue. She wants political debate confined to politicians, or under the control of the media gatekeepers. She believes most of the media share her views of what is “appropriate”.
For Bradford paid advertising must be stopped by the Police even when it is paid for by thousands of concerned working families, because paid advertising bypasses editorial control of what should get public oxygen.
Some young people support the Greens as a fashion statement. But without Rod Donald they are not just fluffy-minded reminders of what politics might be if the world worked as children wish it did.
Sue Bradford can be pleasant. She is dedicated. For her, marxist toughmindedness is a duty. The ends justify the means even if that meant lying about what her law meant. She would regret trashing free speech, but denying the masses the right to communicate with each other their misguided concerns about what their political masters are doing is just an unfortunate price to be paid for ensuring they are not misled by bad elements.
Read the rest here at halfdone:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/section-59-and-foster-children/
Jim Mora on The Panel (note: audit link) yesterday spoke with with Mike Williams (Labour President) and Graham Bell (ex. cop). They spoke about the concerns of foster parents, raised earlier today in other media.It sheds some light on the issue, and makes a point that we have always made – that the new legal framework puts far more power in the hands of children than parents. This is then resulting in people choosing to avoid what was already an increasingly risky proposition – caring for troubled children.
Interview transcribed below.
Jim: … does this make sense to you panel?
Mike Williams: It does make a lot of sense to me and it seems to be that it could… um, if this is a problem a) they don’t’ tell us any numbers, is this two people have dropped out of 8 people, or, you know, 200 out of 800 – what is it, we don’t know. [actually, they said at least 10, so Mike is playing with the truth here just a little – S1] But it seems to me that you do not need to smack children to bring them up, I’m sure Jim you do not smack your own beautiful children and these people need training and that’s what should be offered to them.
Jim: I suppose so, … a lot of parents talk about this, we all hear people up and down the country discuss this and especially in the wake of the recent warning in Christchurch where that bloke was given a warning for ostensibly, ostensibly flicking his son on the head – isn’t that precisely the kind of trivial breach of the law that we were told would be more or less ignored?
Graham Bell: That’s right, and I said when this thing came out that it was just totally pointless, ill conceived, and was going to create problems, and was not going to stop the ill-treatment or murder of one child – it’s not going to prevent anything. These things have continued, there’s been another couple in Auckland since the, ah, this year, the bill is ill-conceived, a waste of time and it’s having more bad effects than good ones.
Jim: I take your point too mike and Allysa, and we’ll get her on in a minute and there’s a quote from her:
“These kids are really hard. They just don’t care who they hurt, and you need really special people to take them on. If you have a kid that is yelling and screaming at you, what are you supposed to do?”
Jim: So she’s talking about life at the coal face, and she joins, Allysa Carberry joins us now. Good Afternoon Allysa.
Allysa Carberry: Hi
Jim: So how bad is it, I mean, Mike Williams says how many people involved.. in your experience have left the whole area because of the new law?
Allysa: [points out that she was interviewed on a different topic]
Jim: nevertheless you do hold those beliefs do you?
Allysa: Ah, it’s the fear of being charged should you need to restrain a child or place a child in care, in time out. That’s a real fear. But there’s also, you know, caregivers are also leaving because of the statements that Brian Perkins made, about being dissatisfied with Child Youth and Family. So it’s not just one issue of why they’re leaving. Yes section, the repeal of section 59 is there in the background, but it’s a whole number of topics of why they’re leaving.
Jim: Hm, all right, so the headline “Anti-smacking worries push foster parents out” how accurate a reflection of your views and observations Allysa is that headline?
Allysa: The anti-smacking, it’s got nothing to do with anti-smacking as it states caregivers have never been allowed to smack foster-children.
Jim: [cautiously]Officially
Allysa: Officially [hard to describe the tone here – high I guess. One gets the impression that Allysa knows it happens and needs to happen sometimes] Um, they’ve never been allowed to do that but there have been kids, children in care that have been needed to be restrained because they were going to hurt themselves or others, and that’s… a real… fear that’s a really good possibility of it happening………
Read the rest here at halfdone:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/section-59-and-foster-children/
Update May 2009:
It seems we didn’t have all the facts. It would now seem that this is another child abuse case since the Section 59 vote.
Under the old Section 59 I suspect that the verdict would have been the same. The father would have been tried under a jury and found guilty.
Only now under the new Section 59 any parent who uses any force to correct their child is suspect.
From:
http://section59.blogspot.com/2008/01/anti-parental-authority-law.html
Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father
Jimmy Mason was out for a walk with his two boys – Seth, 3yrs and Zach, 2yrs. They were having a great time learning to ride the bikes that they had recieved as an early Christmas present. Making their way along Cashel Mall in Christchurch, they came up to the Bridge of Remembrance.
This magnificent memorial was built as an enduring mark of gratituded to the thousands of young men from Christchurch who selflessly gave their lives to defend our Free Land of New Zealand from the tyranous usurpers, many thousands of miles over the water. They fought and died so that the generations that came after them might live in freedom and without fear of oppression from any government, whether it be their own, or a foreign governement.
As all little boys do, Seth and Zach crouched low over their handlebars, racing down the ramp leading down from the bridge, the path leading around a sharp corner. Seth, one year older than his brother, took the corner nicely. Zach however, struggled to keep control of his bike – and losing control, he smashed into the solid brick construction of the bridge. When his father ran up to assist his 2yr old son, he found him lying on the ground, holding his hand to his eye.
Seth had stopped at the corner. He looked down at his brother, lying on the ground, slipping in and out of conciousness. He saw the concern on his dad’s face, and heard him say “wait Seth, we have to look after Zach”. Whether or not he understood how serious the situation, it was with loving fatherly discipline that Jimmy flicked his son on the ear as he started peddling away.
An off-duty police-officer stood nearby, and she immediately reported the incident. With a few minutes, six uniformed police officers stood around the Man and his two little boys. As Jimmy cradled his injured toddler in his lap, one policemen pulled out his notebook as another pulled out his radio and spoke brusquely to head-office.
One can only imagine how scared the two little boys must have been, and the terrifying thoughts rushing through their dad’s head. How was he going to tell his wife that their children were going to be put into a foster-home?…
——————————–
Sue Bradford (Green Party MP):
Ms Bradford, the instigator of the anti-smacking legislation, says if an adult whacked another adult around the ear, they would be “marched down to the slammer.”
Ms Bradford says parents need to accept that it is no longer legal to hit children. She remains confident her anti-smacking laws will change what she describes as a culture of violence.
from http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz
Cindy Kiro, “Children’s Commissioner”:
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz
——————————–
Kiro and Bradford, are both part of the huge bireaucracy of New Zealand. Kiro’s role as “children’s commissioner” was appointed by the Labour Government, and Bradford got into Parliament as a list MP. Neither of them represent New Zealanders. Bradford puts a spin on the case, labelling the flicked ear as a whack around the ear. In a statement to the media a couple of hours later, Kiro joins in the martyrdom of the caring father, firstly by honouring the off-duty police-woman that reported the incident, and then by linking child deaths resulting from being bashed on the head with a light flick on the ear.
Jimmy Mason:
“It was pretty bizarre to tell you the truth.”
“[The police officers] didn’t know and I said to them, ‘Well, you’ve just told me what I did was wrong so you must know what is right’.”
“It needs to be on record that I disciplined him for something he deserved, not that I’m a child beater. There’s an irony there that they can spray, Taser or shoot me but I can’t flick my son in the ear to stop him getting run over at an intersection.”
He was considering legal action to have the warning removed from his record.
——————————–
Seth and Zach are now confused, because they know that their daddy who they love is in trouble with the police. Jimmy is angry because he now has a warning on his record, and CYFS will be faster than ever to remove his children from him and his wife if they hear the slightest little thing.
From:
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/i-like-the-big-brother-society-kiro/
“I Like the Big Brother Society” – Kiro
Apparently Cindy Kiro is not only ok with the “Big Brother” dobbing in of parents trying to do their jobs, but she is actually pleased people are doing it.
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro says she is pleased to see people in the community making a stand against violence towards children after a Christchurch man was reported for flicking his son’s ear.
…
“My office strongly supported the law change to section 59 because all the evidence points to physical punishment as ineffective and in the hands of some people, dangerous.”
Heh, here’s where the lie gets mixed with the truth. Physical punishment was not what was banned – reasonable force as physical punishment was banned. No one ever suggested that unreasonable force (which is not “dangerous” by definition) should not be illegal.
Dr Kiro said it was important not to jump to conclusions and view what facts had been presented in the case.
Great! so I guess we won’t be seeing more quotes like this then:
She told Radio New Zealand the school was “irresponsible” and “I don’t think
the school should be doing that.” The same criticism was reported in newspapers throughout New Zealand. On national television she described me as “seriously misguided”. All that despite not knowing what I had done. All that despite the law under which she works requiring her not to “make any comment that is adverse to a person if the Commissioner has not given the person an opportunity to be heard.” When I asked her about the illegality of her comments she would not reply. It was just one of many things she won’t include in the “discussion” she initiated.
I guess we shouldn’t examine the good doctor too carefully…
“The incident was such that at least two bystanders contacted police.
One was a teacher and the other an off-duty police officer and if they were concerned, then I believe there was something to be concerned about.”
On the other hand, the teacher may be a socialist busy-body, who bullied the policeman into calling up his mates for no reason. Yet another mark off the reputation of the teaching profession.
She said she was especially concerned when she heard the punishment included hitting the child’s head.
“The most common cause of death by child abuse in this country is from injuries to the head. This should never be taken lightly.”
Technically, the ear is on the head.
If parents needed information about how to discipline children without the use of physical punishment, they could contact the commissioner’s office for information, Dr Kiro said.
Funny how Ms Kiro doesn’t share any of that wisdom with us here. Frankly I think most parents would rather walk a mile over hot coals than walk into that office and ask for “help” from a woman who is only interested in persecuting good parents, ignoring her statuary obligation* to investigate bad ones.
*link to Big News post pending.