29 August, 2007 – Family Integrity #288 — Unity for Liberty; Table volunteer appeal
(Forwarded by Craig Smith for your information).
—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:22 PM
To: Craig
Subject: Unity for Liberty; Table volunteer appeal
Hi All,
Unity for Liberty wishes to focus on other areas in New Zealand, we still needs volunteers to man tables in the Howick/ Pakuranga area.
Here’s some wise words from one Howick resident when they signed the petition “If I don’t sign I can’t really complain, can I?”
The same goes for us, if we don’t make the effort we can’t complain either, funny that, if we don’t achieve the target of signatures I guarantee we will blame all those apathetic NewZealanders out there without looking in our own mirrors. Let’s not fall into this trap.
>From one table in Picton St last Saturday we received 380 signatures, the Saturday before 360 signatures. We need to keep this momentum going and we do need you.
To all those in the Howick/Pakuranga area we ask you to please consider this appeal seriously.
Unity for Liberty will be very appreciative of responses.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)
23 August – Family Integrity #287 — Questions to be answered
Dear Friends,
I believe it is essential to have the attached questions about the new Section 59 legislation answered authoritatively in order to let parents know where they stand in relation to their legal responsibilities toward their own children. At present one of the most basic and foundational duties of parenting – correcting one’s own children – appears to be a criminal offense.
Can anyone shed some legal light on these issues? Can anyone suggest a lawyer who would be willing to do some pro bono work on these issues?
Is anyone willing to help form a legal defense association for the defense of the many good parents and their children who will inevitably get caught in this malevolent legislation?
Here are the questions that must be authoritatively answered.
Following the questions are two items for your ease of reference:
1) a copy of the new Section 59 and
2) a copy of the Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03).
Number One: What Is Meant by “Correction”? A. Is it possible to make an arrest or prosecute or secure a guilty verdict against a parent for using force with his/her child for the purpose of correction even though the term “correction” is not defined? B. Does Parliament need to define “correction” before Police will know how to recognize it or identify it? Apparently “correction” used to include all the purposes listed in the present Section 59(1)(a-d). If the meaning of “correction” no longer includes those things, then what does it mean? Could it mean the same as “discipline”, “training”, “punishment” or “guidance”? C. Are the Police going to arrest parents for “correcting” their children using a Police working definition of “correction”? If so, what is that working definition? Will Police then modify their working definition of “correction” once a body of case law is built up and precedents established? D. What if a parent is thoroughly, earnestly and honestly convinced that “correction” of a child is more than just “incidental to good care and parenting” (Section 59(1)(d)), but is an essential part of “good care and parenting”? Are the parent‘s beliefs and/or convictions about this protected in law? E. Is “correction” now not to be considered part of “good care and parenting” (Section 59
(1)(d)), unless it can be accomplished without the use of any force at all? F. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” Are parents now to understand that neither “discipline” nor “punishment” can be considered part of “good care and parenting” unless they can be accomplished without the use of any force?
Number Two: What Is Meant By Reasonable Force? A. Does the term “Force” as it is used in Section 59 of the Crimes Act refer to only physical force or does it also refer to non-physical force such as gestures, intimidation, verbal warnings, threats, insinuations, emotional manipulation, appeals to religion orculture or tradition or concepts of right and wrong? B. On page 2 of the recently issued Police Guidelines to the interpretation and enforcement of the new Section 59 (Circular 2007/03), under the heading “Preventing” it says, “force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child.” What if theparent uses force after the event for the purpose of “preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage” at any time in the future “in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence” or “in offensive or disruptive behaviour” as per Section 59(1)(b) & (c)? Could force used for this purpose be legally justified under the new Section 59? C. On page 3 of the Police Circular, under the heading “Inconsequential offences where there is not public interest in prosecuting”, it says, “The use of objects/weapons to smack a child…would not be inconsequential”. This is obviously in reference to Section 59(4). Do Section 59(4) and this comment from the Circular apply equally to Section 59(1)(a-d) as well as to Section 59(2), or do they apply only to Section 59(2)? D. Does the “reasonable force in the circumstances” of Section 59(1)(a)-(d) mean parents can legally employ implements and/or smacking to accomplish the purposes listed, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances?
Number Three: If There Is Reasonable Doubt, Are Parents Therefore Automatically Guilty? A. Section 59(3) says Sub-Section 2 must prevail over Sub-Section 1. Does this mean that if it is unclear to a Police Officer contemplating making an arrest of a parent who has used force with a child or if it is unclear to a jury trying to decide if the force used by a parent with a child was legally justifiable, if there is a doubt as to whether the use of force was for the purpose of preventing (for example) offensive behaviour or for the purpose of correction, that the interpretation of correction must prevail? B. Does this mean that, contrary to normal understandings of justice wherein one is only guilty when it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, juries and Police Officers in these cases will be required to return a guilty verdict when there is reasonable doubt about the purpose?
Crimes Act 1964
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 the 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.”
Police Analysis and Guide 2007/03 – Crimes (substituted section 59) Amendment Act 2007
Group: Policy
Owner: National Manager: Policy, Police National Headquarters
Publish Date: 12/06/2007
Expiry Date: 12/06/2009
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the
Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes 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.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(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 the 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.
Analysis of the New Section Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
• age of the child
• maturity of the child
• ability of the child to reason
• characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
• the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) — nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
• running across a busy road
• touching a hot stove
• inserting a metal object into a power point
• striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a
child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at
types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; …
2. Hurtful, injurious …
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting …
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption …
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that AreIincidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children.
For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under
this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member’s supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family.
Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in
the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
• establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
• where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
• depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the
discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child
Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre.
The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the
appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be
more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
23 August – Family Integrity #286 — Unity for Liberty; Howick volunteer invitation
Greetings all!
I’m forwarding this on behalf of Unity for Liberty. Please give this your serious consideration.
An appeal to all concerned citizens in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
“SHOULD A SMACK AS PART OF GOOD PARENTAL CORRECTION BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN NEW ZEALAND?”
AND
“SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT GIVE URGENT PRIORITY TO UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE WIDER CAUSES OF FAMILY BREAKDOWN, FAMILY VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE IN NEW ZEALAND?”
If we want change to the NEW ANTI- PARENTING AUTHORITY LAW then the first step is 300,000 signatures, over 200,000 have been collected, we need another 100,000 by the end of March.
Unity for Liberty is seeking volunteers to assist with the collection of signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum in the Howick/Pakuranga area.
JOB DESCRIPTION: To sit at a table and enjoy the wonderful responses from many other concerned New Zealanders’.
To date we have held two very successful Awareness Campaigns and also manned a table on the main street of Howick. Last Saturday this table collected 360 signatures, that means in total there has been a collection of over 1000 signatures for very little effort. WE HAVE ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE.
TRUTH IS, Unity for Liberty wants to go to other parts of the country and raise AWARENESS there too. We can not do both without your help. Our appeal is for all local Churches, other concerned groups and concerned individuals to stand up and take ownership of this issue in their own area.
At present there is only one table in Howick. With your help we can organize more tables (that means more signatures) around Auckland. Larry Baldock, the initiator of the petition and co leader of Future New Zealand, will be manning the table outside the ANZ, Picton Street, Howick this Saturday morning (25th Aug) till 12pm, (the table will continue until 3pm). We encourage you to come down, meet him, and witness how enjoyable this work really is.
Please pass this on to others who may be interested
If there are Churches/concerned citizens who wish to man tables in other areas “Unity for Liberty” will be very interested in running Awareness Campaigns in these areas to assist in your work. Thanks
We also need more “FEET ON FOOTPATHS”, if you can assist here it will be much appreciated
21 August 2007 – Family Integrity #285 — Does Freedom Work?
21 August 2007 – Family Integrity #285 — Does Freedom Work?
Dear Friends,
Here is a 4 Minute & 34 second podcast by the incomparable RJ Rushdoony explaining why social problems are best solved by a free people, and not by a centralized state or monarchy. There are two options: freedom with its attendant insecurities of ups and downs or total security which is slavery.
18 August 2007 – Family Integrity #284 — hate speech effects
Gidday all,
You may remember the homosexual lobby saying that if Section 59 is repealed, they would know they’ll have no problem passing hate crime legislation. They won’t introduce any just yet since Labour made a deal with UF’s Peter Dunne that they’d not introduce any hate crime legislation until after the next election.
They have good reason for being confident….if parents cannot stop the state from usurping their authority over their own children, who will stand up to stop hate crime legislation?
Here is a film of 9 minutes 11 seconds which shows what kind of injustice goes on in the UK, and what we may have in store in the near future.
13 August 2007 – Family Integrity #282 — U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow
To Encourage everyone in relation to signing the petition to bring the outlawing of parental authority (as was done by the rewrite of Section 59) up as a referencdom at the next election, read the following.
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:08 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L, 11th August campaign results, wow
Hi All,
The 2nd Howick/Pakuranga Campaign was an extreme success, not only did we gain more signatures but it was the reaction from the public that speaks volumes.
We soon discovered that the first campaign had primed many to stop and sign this campaign. (at one stage I was forced to carry two clip boards)
This was the reaction from those who had been primed from the first campaign, “I saw you LAST WEEK and did not stop, I’m not going to miss the opportunity this time”.
The significance of this reaction is this, EVERYONE who witnessed our first campaign referred to it as LAST WEEK, it was two weeks ago.
FEET ON FOOTPATH campaigns are styled to impact the mind in this way – clearly it succeeded.
Two young men stopped to sign, asked where they can obtain petition forms so they can take them to Auckland University. Another woman drove past the first campaign, arrived home, then decided to return to sign, only to find that we had finished. She was relieved to see us back. She too thought it was LAST WEEK.
The best part for myself were the cups of coffee supplied by local residents.
The LAST WEEK impact is how I measure the success of FEET ON FOOTPATHS but for those who may measure success by signature here it is. We came home with 380 signatures, the first campaign ran at 1.72 signatures a minute, this one came in at 2.11 a minute, some volunteers had to withdraw at the last minute so we achieved MORE WITH LESS.
Looking forward to the Rodney and Christchurch campaigns on the 1st Sept, I encourage you to support both Arna and Andy who are coordinating these events,they are good people working hard for all New Zealanders.
The more FEET the better, any queries please contact.
Will post more details concerning the 1st Sept campaigns on Wed 15th Aug
—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Hill [mailto:craighill@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:11 AM
To: craighill@maxnet.co.nz
Subject: U4L; gentle reminder 11th Aug
A recent Sue Bradford statement
Did you ever imagine there would be such a strong reaction over the”anti-smacking” bill?
B. Worthington, Auckland
It is not an “anti-smacking” bill. I regret that early on the media picked up and promulgated this description, which solely reflects the views of the bill’s opponents. It is, among other things, an “anti-beating” bill.
IS THIS YOU, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS LAW, THESE PEOPLE HAVE AN AGENDA.
Hi All,
A quick and gentle reminder, Feet on Footpaths this Sat 11th Aug between 9-12am.
We do need more feet. A number of volunteers could only spend an hour due to prior engagements, they were well rewarded for their time.
If there are any queries I would encourage you to email, it was an incredible campaign last time out and there is no reason it won’t be the same again.
The Howick/Pakuranga campaign will be in the Cascades Rd area, if you are in the area make a point of driving past, wave or stop for a chat, be great to see you.
Information on future campaigns, there is some very exciting initiatives.
Unity for Liberty is very excited to be able to work in conjunction with Voice Rodney and announce Arna Mountain as the coordinator for the Feet on Footpath Rodney campaign, details are on the second attachment http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html. Arna is bringing a lot of encouragement and enthusiasm, lets support her efforts.
Hi All “Should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
If your answer is “no”, then you are probably concerned at the removal of parental authority and liberty.
On May 17th 2007 the House of Representatives voted 113 to eight in favour of the legislation that repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act and effectively turns you, a loving and responsible parent, into a criminal. Thus, this law seriously erodes and undermines your parental authority, while at the same time empowers the bureaucracy of the State to intrude in the life of your family.
If you were among the approximately 83 percent of New Zealanders who were opposed to this bill and you may be interested in campaigning with us.
Voice Rodney in conjuction with Unity for Liberty will conduct a Feet on Footpaths campaign on 1st September. See http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz plus attached (below) documents for more information.
The benefit of the Local Awareness Campaigns is to transfer the debate, which has until now been limited to central government and mainstream media, into the local communities. Please read the attached here…http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/08/sat-1-september-2007-feet-on-footpaths.html documents and email me your response as soon as possible.
I need each group to appoint a person who would be responsible to report to me to get final instructions on 1st September on where to be. We will meet and debrief at the end for a few minutes, sharing stories.
Here are some comments from last weeks campaign in Howick
I decided to knock on the doors of people in our street to see if anyone wanted to sign the petition. I left my house after 12 noon, so there had been plenty of time for people to see the placards that were clearly visible in our area…and they had! It was fun to hear these comments from our neighbours:
“Oh, so you are with those people holding up those signs. Good on you!”
“So this is the petition that all those signs are on about!”
“It’s great to see someone doing something about this situation. People in New Zealand are so apathetic!”
I was thankful to know that the signs had been displayed locally and that I wasn’t the only one pacing the streets that day. At least half of the people I spoke to had read the placards and I had a 100% percent success rate: each of my neighbours was willing to sign the petition.
However, I only managed to visit less than half of the houses in our street because everyone wanted to talk about it! Clearly people are disturbed and concerned that the government allowed this Bill to be passed when such a high proportion of the population is against it!
I would encourage you to be involved and help change New Zealand for the better.
Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not you and people from your group can be involved. There is a spreadsheet attached for a list of names.
6 August – Family Integrity #278 — Attend Every Child Counts Conference 5 September
Dear Friends,
Below is a notice of a Conference designed to place children at the center of public policy. That sounds great! But there are, sadly, very sinister implications.
First, children will be considered as autonomous units, apart from and idependent of their families, whanau, culture, religion, ethnicity, etc. Parents will be sidelined and their ability to exercise their parental responsibilities will be severely reduced and compromised.
Second, the catch phrase is ‘best interests of the child“. Who determines that and by what criteria?
Let me quote from a very recent NZ book (2006) “From Innocents to Agents: Children and Children’s Rights in New Zealand” by Michael Reid:
“All members of the community are being encouraged to value and protect children. But there are also less obvious implications for parents and teachers in the new rights-sensitive culture. For example, when rights clash [between those of a child and of its parents, for example], who’s the boss? (pg. 9).
“Rights, once identified and empowered by government action, increase and consolidate state power…..A new dynamic emerges whereby the authority of advocates and officials, rather than that of parents, predominates.” (pg. 10).
“But in the later decades of the twentieth century, children moved from being viewed as innocents in need of protection, to being politicised agents with autonomous rights guaranteed by the state…the state has shifted from supporting the authority and place of families to supporting the emanicpation of children from their parents.” (pg. 15).
“If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors.” (pg. 228).
Know that the Children’s Commissioner already has plans to officially intervene into each and every family at least 4 times for each child from birth to age 16 to assess the child in the areas of social, cognitive, emotional and physical well being. (See http://www.occ.org.nz the Integrated Framework or Ten Year Vision at bottom right of home page).
I want to strongly urge anyone able to attend to do so, take notes and report to the rest of us. It is important to know what these kinds of folks are up to: they are tireless in lobbying for change. If we see what is coming, we can prepare for it. Otherwise it will just land on our plate and we will panic and need to scramble to keep out of harm’s way.
Call me paranoid if you like. It was attending one such conference that alerted me to how serious the anti-smacking lobby was 12 months before the Bradford Bill came to parliament. It allowed us to have done a lot of thinking on the issue and to have a lot of written material prepared and ready to go to oppose the anti-parent authority (anti-smacking) bill when it arrived. (Although we didn’t succeed in our opposition, it forced them to reveal how hypocritical they are and how thoroughly undemocratic and totalitarian.)
Please attend if you can.
Every Child Counts Conference – Are We There Yet? Placing children at the centre of policy and planning
Sep 5, 2007
9:00 am to 4:30 pm
It does seem as if children are moving out of the twilight margins of political discourse. But are they? Six intriguing speakers will use the question, “Are we there yet?” to examine local and central government efforts to place children at the centre of policy and practice.
Placing children at the centre of policy and planning is core platform for the Every Child Counts coalition. Achieving this goal will deliver more sustainable policies that help ensure the well-being of our most vulnerable citizens.
The speakers are: Nic Mason: Manager of the Local Government Centre within the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University, Auck
A cross-party panel of MPs: Lynne Pillay, Dr Jackie Blue, Dr Pita Sharples, Sue Bradford, Brian Donnelly. Peter Dunne and Heather Roy will discuss the policies they will pursue to esure children are at the centre of their considerations. Dr Emma Davies: Principal Advisor (Auck) for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Bev Adair: consultant and advocate for children, recently working with the “For the Sake of the Children Trust” Lyn Campbell: Families Commissioner focussing on advocacy for young people and families Lorraine Tarrant (Ngati Kuia): SKIP Team Manager comes from a teaching background. Ben Lummis: Ben won the first NZ Idol competition in 2004. Of Maori, Ton gan, Samoan and Pakeha descent, Ben mentors, inspires and motivates young people through his musical work often through community events.
Conference costs are $20 Unwaged individual, $50 waged individual, $150 per organisation for five delegates.
For further information, email: children1st@xtra.co.nz or send details and payment to Every Child Counts Conf, PO Box 6434, Wgtn 6141.
This conference is being held at St John’s Conference Centre, Cnr Willis and Dixon Streets, Wellington.
(Here are the current results):
Poll NZ has an appallingly high rate of child abuse. How do we reduce it?
Stop forcing fathers out of their children’s lives.1
2356% of all votes Share the Gospel1
717% of all votes
Invest more in parental education
410% of all votes
Increase incentive re paid employment1
37% of all votes Bring back corporal punishment
25% of all votes Focus on the causes: alcohol, drugs, poverty etc 1
12% of all votes Dismantle government school system and return the responsibility back to parents.1
12% of all votes
Total Votes: 41 Started: Aug 3, 2007
He is on the money when he points to the flood of violence and immoral sex on TV, and the abortion industry. But he misses the boat in saying there is a lack of will in enforcing truancy laws. State schools are a major contributor to the problems of family breakdown and increasing violence. They forcibly separate parents from children at an early age and then, with no reference whatsoever to the individual family cultures/values/religions represented in the classroom, the teachers pump the children full of politically determined “values” and “attitudes” that are often not just contradictory and foreign to those of the family, they are often openly hostile to family values and attitudes. Children are alienated from their parents. This has been going on for several generations and has been so successful, this alienation is now considered normal. Too many parents have lost the art of parenting because they’ve let the pre-school, daycare, school and after-school activities and youth groups and the peer group do it for them. When issues arise, parents do what the last two or three generations have increasingly done: assumed they themselves are not qualified to deal with it, so refer it to the school counselling office or some other “professional”.
And this is not a new problem. Schools have noticed it, so have brought on board more counsellors and assigned teachers and counsellors pastoral roles as well as teaching roles. Many schools now have full time social workers. The more the schools have moved into this area of pastoring children, the more parents have given away their own pastoral duties toward their children (urged on by the school and their own business of life). And the more these two things have happened, the worse the problems have become. These generations now raised up with state agents rather than their parents as the major source of counselling and advice are the ones bashing up their own children at greater rates than ever before.
When state agencies get involved in areas they should not be involved in (such as compulsory schooling and counselling and social welfare) the problems inevitably get worse and begin to multiply. The state’s universal answer: throw more money at the problem. The problem simply gets worse.
31 July 2007 – Family Integrity #275 — Govt has radical plan on child abuse
Dear Friends,
Here are two press releases from today which make it clear, if it wasn’t already, that New Zealand has crossed over the line into a socialist totalitarian regime ruled by an elite group (MPs), 50% of whom, because of our MMP electoral system, are not accountable to the voters of any electorate. The behaviour of these MPs over the last few legislative issues (banning of smacking, legalising of prostitution, setting up civil unions) demonstrates that we do not live in a democracy, for the MPs have dropped all pretense of giving any heed to what the vast majorities (80-90% in these three issues named) of voters wanted. Note how every family is suspect and will be questioned to see if they are perhaps innocent. New Zealand used to have the legal understanding that you were innocent until proven guilty. No more.
(When reading these, always remember that “violence” includes any form of smacking/spanking regardless of the context plus any force whatsoever no matter how light or reasonable if the force was used for the purpose of correction. Sadly “correction” is not defined in law here, so it is not clear what is meant, although the police have issued guidelines which indicate that it includes “discipline” and “punishment”.)
——————————————————————————–
What do you think of the Government’s plan? Click here to send us your feedback editorial@stuff.co.nz
——————————————————————————–
Speaking on Radio New Zealand, acting Social Development minister Steve Maharey said the plan would kick off tomorrow.
* Has anybody hurt or threatened you?
* Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?
* Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn’t want to do?
Under the new move, piloted at National Women’s Hospital, any woman who answered ‘yes’ to one or more of the three questions would be further questioned to find out if she was pregnant and if there were children at home.
Mr Maharey said the move was among several measures being taken.
“Frontline health workers of hospitals will be working with all people who come through hospitals in future, children, families to look at whether there is violence in the family, whether there’s any kind of assistance that can be given,” Mr Maharey told Radio New Zealand.
While it will now be formal policy many hospitals are already doing something similar.
In March Bay of Plenty District Health Board announced it would become latest DHB to automatically screen all women over 16 for signs of family violence.
Most DHBs from around the country had adopted the programme over the past four years.
The move was one of a range of initiatives including a previously announced $14 million campaign starting in September to send a message violence was unacceptable and tell people how to get help.
There will be a helpline that will direct people to assistance.
Mr Maharey said the announcement was planned before two recent cases hit the national headlines.
On Saturday a 12-week-old Rotorua boy was taken to Starship Hospital with head injuries and three-year-old Nia Glassie remains in the same hospital six days after being treated for serious injuries following allegations of abuse which include being hung from a washing line and spun in a clothes dryer.
Auckland District Health Board family violence co-ordinator Kathy Lowe said nurses were required to ask the first three questions of every woman aged 16 to 65 and every caregiver of children even if they came to hospital for something like an ingrown toenail.
Yesterday social groups and politicians called for stronger tackling of child abuse.
Four people – three men and a woman – reappeared in Rotorua District Court court yesterday accused of abusing Nia and were further remanded.
A fifth man also facing similar charges and police have not yet ruled out further arrests.
The unrelated Rotorua cases have reignited the debate about New Zealand’s high rate of child abuse, little over a year after the death of three-month-old twins Cru and Chris Kahui in Auckland sparked a similar debate.
United Future leader Peter Dunne said Maori needed to face up to child abuse problems in their community.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said he was ashamed to hear about every case of child abuse among Maori.
He said problems of child abuse stemmed from a dysfunctional culture which happened among poverty-stricken and underachieving communities, a group in which Maori were too highly represented, and that Maori needed to take ownership of the problem and working towards solutions.
National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges chief executive Heather Henare said the cases were shocking but warned against “Maori-bashing”.
“We need to make sure we are not alienating whanau and that increased support goes into preventing such abuse from happening.
“The overwhelming majority of Maori are sickened by child abuse, and deserve support and encouragement to face the challenge of breaking the cycle of violence within their hapu and whanau.”
Prime Minister Helen Clark called for people to act when they knew of abuse.
“I cannot believe that a child subjected to that level of horror, sadism, torture – that nobody knew,” she said.
“I can’t believe that and people have got to start turning in those who frankly are maiming and killing our children.”
National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins said Miss Clark’s Government had done little to stop child abuse since the death of the Kahui twins.
“What we do know is that Helen Clark’s promise to identify clusters of at-risk families was never carried out and that the cross-party talkfest on child violence ended up largely being a repackaging of policies which Labour was already rolling out,” she said.
“Our record on child abuse is a national disgrace. If Labour thought smacking legislation was the answer they were mistaken.”
Non governmental Groups called for increased education and greater community involvement.
Stopping the cycle of violence against children
Tuesday, 31 July 2007, 10:34 am
Press Release: Green Party
31 July 2007
Stopping the cycle of violence against children
Each of us need to take responsibility and action to stop violence against children wherever and whenever we see it happening, including within our own families, Green Party MP Sue Bradford says.
“The success of my recent bill to amend s59 of the Crimes Act took just one step towards this goal, by removing the ‘reasonable force’ defence which legitimized violence against children for the purposes of correction. As a result, our legal system no longer mandates child beating,” Ms Bradford says.
“However, all of us involved in the campaign around s59 knew full well that this was only one part of what needs to change. Rather than devote energy into blaming and scapegoating others, we need to work towards :
* Increasing funding to tangata whenua and community sector groups which support families in trouble, and which educate parents about alternatives to violence, including the SKIP programme
* Revitalising the Cross Party Working Group on Family Violence with the goal of genuinely working for policies that all, or most, political parties can buy into
* More parenting education in schools from a young age, so children grow up having a much better appreciation of the realities of becoming a parent
* A serious commitment by Government to do a lot more to end child and adult poverty, and substandard housing
* Continuing to improve the capacity of Government agencies to work with families in a genuinely developmental way – rather than perpetuating patronising and dismissive approaches which can harm and alienate the very people who most need support to change
* Reconsideration of the ‘Work First’ ethic of current welfare and Working for Families policies which implies that it is better for everyone, even the mothers of young children, to be in the paid work than at home caring for their children.
“It is also ironic that Bob McCroskie of Family First is mounting a campaign to reintroduce corporal punishment in schools at this time.
“Mr McCroskie still does not seem to understand that violence breeds violence. Such a measure, if successful, would only emphasise the message that it’s good to beat kids – which creates the effects we see all around us today.
ENDS
30 July – Family Integrity #274 — Test and Prelude
Greetings all,
Here below is some great commentary on Section 59, pointing out the kind of ugly stuff we have to look forward to.
The Anti-Smacking Bill -A Test And A Prelude To Persecution
Why is it for Bradford and Clark that the enemies are always Christian “Fundamentalists”?
Garnet Milne
The anti-smacking, anti-parenting bill is a test and a prelude. It is a test to see if parliament will pass legislation which especially discriminates against Christian values-in this case the Christian biblical warrant for using corporal punishment in child rearing. It is a test because if it succeeds then more intrusive legislation against Christian values will follow. This will involve hate speech legislation aimed at churches and private schools which teach morality, especially Christian moral teaching which criticises homosexuality, divorce, abortion, religious idolatry and adultery as being morally repugnant. The social engineers who control the reigns of power have a deep hatred for God, His people, and His Law.
The Fabian socialists* have been building up to this for a considerable period of time. They have succeeded in decriminalising homosexuality and in order to do so they were very cunning. They used an argument that it wouldn’t hurt non-homosexuals, because they were not being compelled to agree with homosexuality. They argued “live and let live”.
Once they had achieved this victory, the neo-pagans realised that their real goals were within their reach, but the argument they had used to achieve the decriminalising of homosexuality was no longer sufficient. They had argued that the Christian public were not being compelled in anyway by laws sanctioning homosexuality, later prostitution, and in the not too distant future euthanasia. The social engineers realised that in order to achieve their real goal of suppressing and criminalising Christian morality, not just count it as one legitimate expression of morality in a free society, they would need to first get immorality normalised and sanctioned as morally acceptable. Once that had been achieved the social engineers would move into the next phase (which is happening right now) and begin to push legislation-on a gullible and largely apathetic public, legislation which would actually punish and thereby marginalise the Christian voice.
For those with the eyes to see, there is ample evidence that this is taking place in New Zealand. Once the neo-pagan Fabian socialists have succeeded in criminalising ordinary parents who smack their kids, they will move onto hate-speech legislation directed against Christians especially who speak out against homosexuality and false religions such as Islam, among other evils. This trend will only be checked if Christians return to faithfulness and begin to apply the Christian faith to all of life, holding evil politicians accountable for their scurrilous misuse of political power.
Christians will need to unitedly dissent from the present political system as a testimony against this evil, and then agitate for a recommitment to our historic responsibility as a nation in covenant with God, a status inherited from our British roots. A piecemeal approach to applying Christianity only as far as the neo-pagans will let us is a dead end. Only a radical social revolution will stem the tide of Fabian socialist legislated evil, a vile blot on our nation’s brief history. This revolution must begin with the nation’s believers uniting in an attempt to recommit ourselves as a covenant nation under God. Playing lobbyists, while necessary to maintain a witness or testimony against evil, will never be a sufficient to achieve a real and lasting victory for truth and peace in our time.
*“Fabian” is a name taken by early socialists in the UK from a Roman general (Quintus Fabius Maximus) whose tactics involved wearing the enemy down through attrition by harassment rather than direct confrontation in classical battle array. Fabianism is therefore the doctrine of gradualism in politics.
Should police have more powers to seize children at risk of abuse?
Yes 86%
No 12%
Not sure 2%
(Results as at 10:35am Mon 30 July 2007.)
The stories of abuse and death of children in the home are horrendous, and calls for action are needed and welcomed.
What kind of action is needed? This poll intimates that more police intervention is needed: intervention BEFORE any injury or crime has been committed. This is a very dangerous precedent. All parents will come under suspicion. Suspicion — mere suspicion, not actual facts or real behaviour — will be the criteria for police intervention. And Police intervention in relation to children means CYFS intervention and what they call “alternative placement”: that is, your children are taken away and given to someone else.
The Police already have the power to break into homes and remove children, using whatever force in necessary, WITHOUT a warrant, if they belive the child is in immanent danger (see Section 42 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989).
It is during times of crisis and when the public mind is very angry at such ugly crimes as we’ve seen against wee children in the last few weeks that the state can be given — in a very unwise, reactionary way — license to remove more liberty, license to give more unnecessary interventionary powers to agents of the state.
Regards,
Craig S. Smith
28 July 2007 – Family Integrity #272 — Family First Press Releases
Greetings
Here are two press releases from Family First that I thought worth sending onto you:
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/27-july-2007-family-first-calls-for.html
My comments with this one are: “So much for the strong message Bradford and Kiro insisted was being sent by rewriting Section 59. All the law change did was put all good parents in the firing line, unsure what force they are allowed to use and for what purpose, for the state has taken away from parents that discretion and authority.”
6 July 2007 – Family Integrity #270 — Larzelere’s parting comments
Dear Friends,
World expert on corporal correction Dr Robert Larzelere visited NZ earlier this year. If you haven’t already done so, you must read his parting comments (reproduced below)as he left NZ just before the final vote which criminalised it here in New Zealand. Very sobering reading.
NZ’s Anti-Smacking Law Most Extreme in the World
Dr Robert E. Larzelere
After 28 years of research, I came to New Zealand on behalf of her children, her parents, and her ethnic and religious minorities with the boldest claim I have ever made in the public arena: “There is no sound scientific evidence to support a smacking ban.” The best evidence the Children’s Commissioner could muster against that claim on the Campbell Live TV program was about my written reply to an anti-smacking article in a scientific journal 14 years ago – not because of its content, but because the journal was sponsored by a Ph.D.-granting Christian university! How could someone as knowledgeable as Dr. Kiro emphasize such a ridiculous criticism? She got that criticism from her Canadian consultant Dr. Joan Durrant, the Pied Piper who wants to lead New Zealand’s children to the Swedish utopia that she could not lead her own country’s children to – because the Canadian Supreme Court retained their country’s version of Section 59 after considering both sides of the scientific and legal evidence.
What does this Swedish utopia look like? One year after Sweden’s smacking ban, 3% of their parents admitted beating up their child – 2 to 5 times higher than the overly high American rate. Physical child abuse increased almost 6-fold during the next 15 years, according to Swedish criminal records. Criminal assaults by minors against minors increased over 6-fold during that same time period. The ability of parents to enforce appropriate discipline continued to erode until only 31% of 10- to 12-year-olds thought that parents had the right to use grounding in 2000. All these statistics come from Swedish anti-smacking authors.
Even more worrisome, 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, although the government’s politically clever but inconsequential concession gives police the discretion not to prosecute mild offences. 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.
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. In addition, the gap between what will be technically criminal and what will be prosecuted opens the door wide for discriminatory enforcement.
The bill is motivated by a commendable desire to reduce child abuse, but it will make it a crime to bring the most effective treatment for abusive parents to New Zealand. In a review of 20 years of treatments for abusive parents, eminent abuse researcher Dr. Mark Chaffin showed that none of them turned out to be effective. He then developed a new treatment that decreased recidivism of child abuse charges from 49% to 19%. It will be a crime to bring that treatment to New Zealand, however, because it includes a non-smacking type of force to enforce time out.
Everything seems backward to me in New Zealand – people drive on the left side of the road and are now preparing for winter instead of summer. And it is the liberals rather than the conservatives who take absolutist positions and impose their values on everyone else, including over 80% of Kiwis who oppose this ban. They also show little cultural sensitivity toward others who are different in religion or ethnicity.
The pervasive confusion about what will be permitted under the new law makes the pre-existing law allowing parents “reasonable force to correct their children” seem reasonable indeed, although it needs to be updated to clearly exclude physical abuse.
As Bill Clinton said of abortion, smacking ought to be safe, legal, and rare. His successor 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.
With this bill, New Zealand will leapfrog the field to ban more forms of traditional disciplinary enforcements than any other country. But their ban 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.
As I prepare to leave New Zealand, I have difficulty holding back the tears whenever I see its beautiful children, knowing they are about to be victimized by the most extreme and unproven social experiment in history. I feel like the engineer who predicted that the O-rings on the Challenger space shuttle were likely to fail, but no one would listen. His tragic prediction proved all too accurate. I hope I am less accurate about the forthcoming failure of New Zealand’s smacking ban than that engineer was.
Dr Larzelere is Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Science at the Oklahoma State University, and was brought to New Zealand by Family First NZ as a scientific expert on child correction.
Most of you are aware that the Bradford amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act comes into force today. It has been generally recognised that this makes parental use of force in the correction of children illegal. In exactly the same way the use of force by schools and teachers in the correction of children is now illegal.
From today, it appears that forcing a child to undergo correction at school will constitute an assault.
If the Police are consistent in following their guidelines published this week, every complaint about a punishment or correction at school will need to be investigated and, if not prosecuted, reported to a Family Violence Co-ordinator.
There is no provision in the Education Act that specifically empowers schools to correct children. Hitherto the legal basis for teachers in New Zealand schools correcting enrolled children has been that they are acting “in the place of parents”. The Bradford amendment to S59 specifically excludes those acting in the place of parents from using force to punish or correct a child.
A school that forces a child to write lines, pick up paper in the playground or be detained at an interval or after school, for the purpose of punishment or correction, is likely to be committing an assault.
Schools need to note that “force” is a term not restricted to physical force: it can involve placing a child under duress whereby he reasonably believes he will suffer if he does not comply.
The Police Guidelines specifically identify as an offence the detaining of a child in a situation where punishment or correction is intended (as opposed to transient detention to end an actual act of offensive, disruptive, illegal or dangerous behaviour).
State Schools, as opposed to Private Schools, are empowered by the Education Act to stand-down, suspend or exclude pupils. But that power cannot be exercised by way of punishment or correction: it can only be exercised on the basis that the student or other students will be harmed or that other students will be subject to a dangerous example.
Similarly State Schools are empowered by the Education Act to make bylaws, but only so far as they are in compliance with the “general law” of New Zealand. Such bylaws can no longer legitimise the use of force to correct or punish children.
Private Schools’ powers of correction have hitherto rested on the contractual arrangements with parents and the common law recognition that teachers are acting in the place of parents. The power to correct on the basis that teachers are acting in the place of parents is now specifically removed, and no contractual arrangement with parents could restore such a power.
We strongly advise schools to:
1. take legal advice
2. revise their discipline policies and practices
3. brief staff on safe management of children
We also recommend that as part of schools’ citizenship and anti-violence programmes guidance be given children on how to lodge complaints with the Police on behalf of themselves or others who might have been forcibly detained or punished in any school.
While we are not confident Police will be as willing to intervene in state schools as they are to intervene in families, children in schools are entitled to the same even-handed application of the law as children in the home.
In so far as biblical Christian faith and practice has been specifically targeted in the propaganda used to ram this amendment through Parliament in the face of unprecedentedly overwhelming opposition to it, we have every reason to fear that Christian families and schools will be targeted while state institutions will not be subject to the same policing. The fact that the Police Guidelines deal exclusively with corrective force in families and ignore the same offence in schools where it is a daily practice, appears indicative of already entrenched discrimination in Police attitudes and practice.
That a ban on smacking should effectively extend to all forms of punishment and correction should not come as a surprise. It is not just smacking that is opposed. All forms of correction and punishment are opposed in the foolish belief that there is no God, and that as a consequence there is no right and wrong. Along with that is the equally futile belief that if only we can make the “appropriate” laws, “inappropriate” behaviour can be ended and social harmony established.
But enforcing outward compliance does not change the heart, from which, Jesus said, comes wrong (Matthew 15:19). Laws cannot make people good, so laws cannot make societies good. Only God can change the heart. The Bradford amendment gives expression to the hope that man can replace God, and by law change human nature.
Law can, and should, punish wrong and reward right (Romans 13:4). While unable to change the hearts of wrongdoers, good law does establish an orderly and safe society. Ironically, the Bradford amendment that ostensibly opposes punishment will punish parents and teachers who really have the welfare of children at heart.
Michael L Drake
Director
21 June 2007 – Family Integrity #268 — Police Guidelines
21 June 2007
New Zealand’s new “anti-smacking” law, due to come into effect tomorrow, Friday 22 June 2007, will make it a crime for parents to use any force whatsoever with their children, regardless of how reasonable or light, for the purpose of correction.
The following consists of:
1. A brief press release by the NZ Police.
2. A lengthy analysis of the new law change and practice guide for Police Officers written by Police Commissioner Howard Broad.
3. Section 6 of the Act which changed the law promising a review of the legislation after two years.
4. Another press release today showing further concern by Police.
5. Web address for petition forms to demand the NZ Government hold a referendum on the issue at the next elections (November 2008).
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
mailto:craig@hef.org.nz http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
1. Police Practice Guide for new Section 59
<http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/3149.html>
3:43pm 19 June 2007
Police today released a practice guide on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act which comes into force this Friday 22 June 2007.
Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope, said the practice guide, in the form of a Commissioner’s circular, had been made available to all police staff on the organisation’s intranet to advise staff about the new section 59.
Mr Pope said the Commissioner’s circular took into account Parliament’s affirmation that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution.
“Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts. It will take time to see the impact of the new law. We have, therefore, set a three month review date on the Commissioner’s circular to enable it to be refined if necessary,” said Mr Pope.
Introduction
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (“Amendment Act”) comes into force on 22 June 2007 and amends section 59 of the Crimes Act.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act provided a statutory defense for every parent of a child and every person in place of the parent of a child to use force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of the Amendment Act is to amend the Crimes 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.
The purpose of this practice guide is to advise staff about the new section and to give guidance on the application of it. Until case law develops on the section, it is not known how it will be interpreted and applied by the Courts.
If staff require any advice about the application of section 59 to any particular circumstances, they should consult Prosecution Services, a Child Abuse Investigator, a Family Violence Coordinator or Legal Services.
New Section 59
Section 59 states:
(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 the 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.
Analysis of the New Section
Child
“Child” is not defined for the purpose of section 59. Because “child” is not defined, it is not clear whether it includes those persons 17 years of age and under (as it is defined in the Care of Children Act 2004), or perhaps, under 14 years of age (as it is defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989). As children get older, the use of reasonable force for the purposes listed in section 59 will become less justifiable. Factors that will need to be considered in determining whether the force used is justified under section 59 include:
* age of the child
* maturity of the child
* ability of the child to reason
* characteristics of the child, such as physical development, sex and state of health, and
* the circumstances that led to the use of force.
Person in the Place of a Parent
“Person in the place of a parent” is also not defined, but includes step parents and foster parents, and other persons who take on parental responsibility in the absence of a parent.
Force Used Is Reasonable in the Circumstances
No definitions are offered about what constitutes reasonable force. In using force parents must act in good faith and have a reasonable belief in a state of facts which will justify the use of force. The use of force must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
Any force used must not be for the purposes of correction or punishment; it may only be for the purposes of restraint (s 59(l)(a) to (c)) or, by way of example, to ensure compliance (s 59(1)(d)).
Preventing
To “prevent” is to hinder or stop something from occurring. From this it is implicit that reasonable force can only be used at the time that the intervention by the parent is required, i.e. force cannot be used after the event to punish or discipline the child. This distinction is made clear in the new subsections (2) and (3) – nothing in s 59(1) will justify the use of force for the purposes of correction.
Preventing or Minimising Harm to the Child or Another Person
This subsection allows reasonable force to be used to prevent or minimise harm to the child or another person. For example, to stop a child from:
* running across a busy road
* touching a hot stove
* inserting a metal object into a power point
* striking another child or person with an object.
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Conduct that Amounts to a Criminal Offence
This subsection authorises the use of reasonable force to prevent children from committing offences. Although a child under 10 cannot be convicted of an offence (section 21 Crimes Act 1961), and a child aged 10 to 13 can only be charged with murder or manslaughter (section 272 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), a child of any age can commit an offence e.g. theft, wilful damage or assault. Therefore, a parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child can use reasonable force to prevent their child, by way of example, from damaging or stealing property, or assaulting other people or themselves (Note: the defence of self defence could equally apply in such cases).
Preventing the Child from Engaging or Continuing to Engage in Offensive or Disruptive Behaviour
Offensive or disruptive behaviour is not defined in the Crimes Act and it is not known where the boundaries lie in the context of this subsection. While current case law can offer some insight, the analysis provided by the Courts is more particularly targeted at types of behaviour that warrant the interference of the criminal law.
In Ceramalus v Police (1991) 7 CRNZ 678 Tomkins J adopted the following as a helpful description of “offensive behaviour”:
[The behaviour] must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “offensive” as:
1. Pertaining or tending to attack; aggressive; …
2. Hurtful, injurious …
3. Giving, or of a nature to give, offence; displeasing; annoying; insulting …
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “disruptive” as:
1. Causing or tending to disruption …
Examples of behaviour that may amount to offensive or disruptive behaviour, depending upon the specific circumstances, could include, by way of example, yelling and screaming or throwing objects or food.
Performing the Normal Daily Tasks that Are incidental to Good Care and Parenting
Many everyday tasks require parents to use force when interacting with their children. For example, when changing nappies, dressing or securing a child in a car seat, or applying sunscreen. The use of reasonable force in performing such tasks is permitted under this subsection.
Also, a parent may send or take their child to, by way of example, their room against the child’s will at the time the intervention is required. Force may be required to perform such a task and the use of reasonable force in such circumstances may be justified under this subsection, i.e. to prevent the child from continuing to engage in the behaviour (s 59(l)(b) or (c)) or to restore calm. However, if the child is detained for a period or in a manner that is unreasonable in the circumstances, this subsection will not provide a defence to such action.
Inconsequential Offences Where There Is No Public Interest in Prosecuting
Parliament has expressly affirmed that for minor cases of assault against children, Police have discretion not to prosecute where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in a prosecution. The Crown Law Office Prosecution Guidelines for Crown Solicitors also states that a factor that may arise for consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution includes:
the seriousness or, conversely, the triviality of the alleged offence; that is, whether the conduct really warrants the intervention of the criminal law.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “inconsequent” as:
Of no consequence
And the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “inconsequential” as:
Unimportant
The use of objects/weapons to smack a child, strikes around the head area or kicking would not be inconsequential assaults. While all mitigating and aggravating circumstances would need to be considered, such assaults will generally require a prosecution in the public interest.
In addition, while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions are repetitive or frequent, and other interventions or warnings to the offender have not stopped such actions.
Application of the Police Family Violence Policy (1996/2)
The Police Family Violence Policy outlines the principles, policy and procedures for best practice when members of Police deal with family violence within their community. The term ‘family violence’ includes violence which is physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse, and includes intimidation or threats of violence. The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whanau, or other people involved in relationships.
Paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy states:
Given sufficient evidence, offenders who are responsible for family violence offences shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be arrested. In rare cases where action other than arrest is contemplated, the member’s supervisor must be consulted.
Force used on children that is not permissible under section 59 is covered by the Family Violence Policy.
It is considered good practice that assault investigations involving children be referred to Child Abuse Investigators, and investigated in conjunction with Child, Youth and Family. Where an assault on a child is witnessed by Police or where a report of an assault needs to be dealt with promptly, Police Officers will need to determine whether section 59 provides a good defence and if it does not, arrest the alleged offender unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Police investigating cases where force is used against a child, as is the case with all assault investigations, must consider the amount of force used in the circumstances, among other things, before making a decision about whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. In such cases Police need to:
* establish whether there is sufficient admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed
* where and when possible, refer appropriate cases to Child Abuse Investigators where they may be investigated further
* depending upon the amount of force used, take into account whether it is in the best interests of the child/family and the public to prosecute, i.e. “exceptional circumstances” will justify a departure from the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Police Family Violence Policy. Staff must apply their common-sense.
In Attorney-General v Hewitt [2000] NZAR 148 a full bench of the High Court held that adopting a policy to automatically arrest a suspect without allowing for exceptional circumstances was not lawful. The High Court also held that a failure to consider the discretion to arrest was unlawful and arbitrary under section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Discretion must
be used by staff.
Referrals and Documentation
In cases where the force used is found to be minor, trivial or inconsequential, it will be appropriate to record the event on a POL400 and forward the file to the Family Violence Coordinator. The expected outcome for such events will be one using common sense and of offering guidance and support, dependent on the context following discussion by the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
In repeat events (where other interventions or warnings have been unsuccessful) involving the same family or more serious cases the matter should be recorded on a POL400 and consideration given as to whether prosecution may be appropriate. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the Child Youth and Family Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
For clear events of abuse or neglect, the event will be recorded on a POL400 and dealt with in terms of the CAT/SAT Protocol as a Care and Protection issue. A Notification to Child Youth and Family must be made by faxing the POL400 to the CYF Call Centre. The matter will also be forwarded in the usual way to the Family Violence Co-ordinator.
Appropriate Charging
If a parent of a child or a person in the place of a parent of a child uses force that is not justified under section 59, and there are no exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to prosecute (refer to the above guidance and commentary), the appropriate charge would be assault pursuant to section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 where the offence is not overly serious. For more serious cases, the offence against section 194(a) of the Crimes Act (assault on a child under 14 years of age) would be more appropriate.
Howard Broad
Commissioner
3. Section 6 of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007:
6. Chief executive to monitor effects of this Act
(1) The chief executive must, in accordance with this section, monitor, and advise the Minister on, the effects of this Act, including the extent to which this Act is achieving its purpose as set out in section 3 of this Act, and of any additional impacts.
(2) As soon as practicable after the expiry of the period of 2 years after the date of the commencement of this Act, the chief executive must—
a. review the available data and any trends indicated by that data about the matters referred to in subsection (1); and
b. report the chief executive’s findings to the Minister.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving the report under subsection (2), the Minister must present a copy of that report to the House of Representatives.
(4) In this section, chief executive and Minister have the same meanings as in section 2(1) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.
4. Smacking guidelines too restrictive – police
NZPA | Thursday, 21 June 2007
<http://www.stuff.co.nz/4103124a11.html>
New guidelines for handling smacking complaints are too restrictive for police and will put pressure on those making decisions about complaints, the Police Association says.
The police guidelines drew some criticism after being issued on Tuesday, with critics concerned the new rules may be confusing to interpret.
A late amendment to new smacking laws added the proviso that police had the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent where the offence was considered to be inconsequential.
But association president Greg O’Connor said the guidelines defeated the purpose of the amendment about discretion.
“The guidelines mean we have been given less discretion than we thought we were going to be given,” he told the New Zealand Herald.
There would be pressure on the senior sergeants who would have make decisions about individual cases.
There would also be pressure on frontline police dealing with people on both sides of the argument trying to prove their point.
Mr O’Connor said as with family violence cases, there would have to be zero tolerance with complaints and they would have to be reported. “And unfortunately, as a result of these guidelines, there is very little discretion. We think the guideliines could have been a little more broad.”
A group opposing the smacking bill – Family First – yesterday said the guidelines confirmed its worst fears.
Director Bob McCoskrie said the guidelines made clear that while smacking may, in some circumstances, be considered inconsequential, a prosecution may be warranted if such actions were repetitive or frequent.
“This makes it quite clear that the discretion clause, trumpeted as the saviour to good parents, will only apply for a limited time and that in effect light smacking of an inconsequential nature will end up being prosecuted,” Mr McCoskrie said.
The guidelines suggested it would take a while to find out how the laws would be interpreted in courts.
National Party leader John Key said the party was confident the police would deal with the law appropriately but that a National government would make changes if things were not working.
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
20 June 2007 – Family Integrity #266 — Apology and Clarification in relation to #265
Dear Friends,
This is in relation to the last Family Integrity Mailout #265 — Thinking of Going Off to Auzzie?
Please forgive me. I apologise. I have made an error of judgement in the way I introduced this subject. It sounds as if I am recommending that people leave NZ…that was not my intention.
It was unwise and unhelpful of me to send out that email with an introduction that made it sound as if I was promoting the idea of fleeing the country.
Please let me say it plainly: I am not promoting the idea of leaving NZ to go to Australia.
I had been asked by a number of folks about the possibility of moving to Australia and so decided to collect some information. Those who asked about the possibility of moving to Australia specifically asked about the smacking laws and the home education laws. Consequently I specifically addressed these things in that last email #265.
Lord willing, I will write something about how we can respond to this law which makes it a criminal offense to correct one’s own children if it involves the use of any level of force at all. Whatever commentary I may write will of necessity also deal with some of the implications of this new legislation…and yet the implications are also rather vague due to the complete lack of definitions of most of the key terms in the law and the lack of any case law as yet.
Please forgive me and please accept my apologies for stirring up unnecessary fear or warnings to flee the country. We each need to soberly assess the situation and work out what to do.
19 June 2007 – Family Integrity #265 — Thinking of Going off to Auzzie?
Greetings!
OK, I know I’ll get a lot of flak for this, but here it is anyway:
Below is a lot of information to help folks get started on their investigations of the opportunity to shift to Australia to escape the galloping interventionist socialism we are curesed with here in NZ.
I can’t tell you much about Melbourne, but we are looking at going to Queanbeyan which is on the NSW side of the ACT state line.
The NSW law was changed a couple of years ago but rather than throwing out their version of section 59, they defined what was UNreasonable.
This included 2 items – one that a child could not be physically chastised above the shoulders, and the other is that a smack cannot leave more than a transitory sting – no lasting injuries. Some people wanted to outlaw the use of implements, but this was thrown out.
Both NSW and ACT have homeschooling written right throughout their education acts also, making it an ingrained part of their laws, rather than just the one law we have, that could easily be struck out just like section 59.
As far as rents go, go to http://www.realestate.com.au they have rentals and sale properties. It is also worth checking out the likes of <http://mycareer.com.au> for jobs.
Hope this is of some help.
Blessings
C….(in NZ)
We have just moved to Ballarat which is 1.25 hrs west of Melbourne. Ballarat has about 80,000 people. VIC has NO H/E rules so you just do what you want and don’t have to tell anybody.
There are a number of towns and cities in VIC. Bendigo is a nice city about 100,000 I think and property isn’t much dearer than Ballarat. Shepparton (2 hrs north of Melb) is nice too about 25,000 and similar market to Bendigo.
Melbourne is extremely expensive to buy a house, like $400,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house. Ballarat is about $160,000-$200,000 for a normal 3 bdrm house and rent is about $200 for the equivalent.
Cost of general living like food and fuel is about the same as NZ. Fuel is actually cheaper. Vans are ludicrously expensive and few and far between. Make sure you have $15,000-$25,000 for a reasonable van, not the $5,000-$10,000 like in NZ.
Sell all your belongings on Trademe and go garage saleing here. We did and got some good stuff and cost less than what we got for our stuff in NZ.
Hope this helps
Blessings
M…(in Oz)
About 80% of homeschoolers in Queensland aren’t registered. Large families are also not as common, even amongst homeschoolers.
I hope this helps
B….(in Oz)
I have just been doing some research on homeschooling in Victoria, and it appears that the laws are set to become quite controlling in the middle of this year. After M……’s email regarding the ease of homeschooling laws there, I thought it would be pertinent that you know of the changes. These can be viewed at http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/victorianlegalinformation.pdf
Here are the things that worried me most:
8 Requirements of instruction in home schooling:
It is a requirement of registration of a child for home schooling that the child must receive regular and efficient instruction that-
(a) taken as a whole, substantially addresses the following learning areas-
(i) The Arts;
(ii) English;
(iii) Health and Physical Education (including Sport);
(iv) Languages other than English;
(v) Mathematics;
(vi) Science;
(vii) Studies of Society and Environment;
(viii) Technology; and
Note: These are the learning areas set out in Schedule 1 to the Act.
(b) is consistent with the principles underlying the Act, being the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to-
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance.
Some of these strike me as plain dumb, and others appear to be saying we must teach homo-friendly views to our kids.
C……(in NZ)
I have spent hours trying to find out the smacking laws in the different Australian states, and have just found this link that gives a brief summary, followed by a table at the bottom of the page:
Brief Review of Home Education Laws in Australia
“Many of us cannot see NZ as a viable place to rear a Christian family any more. Anyway, there are now a growing number of people asking about which part of Australia we can flee to.”
Hmm, I am not sure that is a wise way to be thinking. The changes to s59 alone would seem to me to be insufficient cause to “up stakes” and migrate to sunny Oz – “the land of the long weekend” and where Global Warming hysteria is such that we made Tim Flannery our Australian of the Year. Such major upheaval could be a case of ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’.
We have our own difficulties here, too. Australia was a sponsor of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child back in the 1980s, and I was involved in some rearguard defence at the time – to no avail. It’s sad to have all your arguments vindicated by 20 years of creeping socialism.
Although for now our assault laws in the Crimes Acts of each jurisdiction still include a defence of reasonable force, there are irregular rumblings from the anti-smacking brigade here too. So it might only be a year or five years before the battle is joined here.
As you would be aware, this is all part of the attack on the family – God’s institution for revival.
“People want to know about the home education laws in the various states.”
The shortest answer is that as of today:
a) all States except Victoria (where we are) regulate home education by requiring parents to obtain permission to educate their own children.
b) all States except Victoria require parents to complete forms, submit curriculum plans and be inspected regularly.
c) Within this framework, the diligence of inspection etc varies, so that in order of preference, it is “easiest” in a pragmatic sense to home educate in:
Victoria
New South Wales
South Australia
Tasmania
Western Australia ?
Aust Capital Territory
Northern Territory
Western Australia ?
Queensland
[In the spiritual sense, it’s almost all the same except for Victoria which is about to change. Our spiritual freedom has been compromised by an interfering governmental humanism.]
As from some date soon – probably July 1st, Victorians will have a new Education Act proclaimed and we will have to register to home educate our children.
The above rankings will remain as we will not be required to have regular inspections.
However, we must keep sufficient records to show that we are observing the 8 Key Learning Areas, and the motherhood statements in the Act (democracy, tolerance, rule of law – all the usual UNO guff).
Inspections will occur only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that we are not fulfilling the requirements/conditions of registration.
We fought hard last year against all this, but to no avail – and now this same Labour socialist government was voted back in (as opposed to the Liberal socialist Opposition who couldn’t ‘lay a glove on them’) and we are literally running out of water for the population!
It is timely that in our church we are studying the prophecy of Joel – it certainly speaks to Australia’s current situation.
Hope this gives you some data.
Christian Regards,
John & Marjo Angelico
Kingsley Educational Pty Ltd
P O Box 310
Mount Waverley
VIC 3149 AUSTRALIA
ABN 77 007 423 734
Phone +613 9544 8792
Fax +613 9544 2328
talldad@kepl.com.au http://www.kepl.com.au
14 June 2007 – Family Integrity #263 — School Newsletter
Dear Friends,
The writer of the attached (below) school newsletter gave me permission to send it further afield — to you all. I reckon his analysis and recommendations of the situation (before the Bill to Criminalise Parental Authority was passed) is very insigtful and helpful.
Tyndale Park Christian School
206 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, Manukau 2016. Phone 274 9771, Fax 274 9772
27 April 2007
Dear Parents, Staff, Pupils and Friends,
If we are not of this world, we will be hated by this world. If we believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 15:19 “I have chosen you out of the world” then we should not only be aware but even experience that the world hates us!
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19.
“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” 1 John 3:13.
Why are Christians – jailed in Eritrea, murdered in India, missing in Sri Lanka, facing trial in Uzbekistan, buried alive in Sudan, have their houses burned down in Pakistan, executed in Indonesia, beheaded in Sulawesi, tortured in Vietnam, martyred in Iran, stoned to death in Nigeria, imprisoned in Belarus, or starved to death in North Korea? Because:
1. They no longer have freedom and are persecuted for their faith in these countries and in many other countries.
2. They love their Saviour and are “not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ” (see Romans 1:16).
3. They are persuaded that they “ought to obey God rather than men” (see Acts 5:29).
4. They realise that the world hated their Lord before it hated them (see John 15:18).
5. They are not willing to compromise in their testimony.
We indeed have reason to be very thankful that we do not live under persecution in New Zealand such as that mentioned in the countries listed above. However, are you aware that since the 1980’s there has been a systematic effort, through social manipulation, in our own country, to destroy God’s first institution, the family and the home?
A dictionary from the 1980’s gives the following definition of a family: “people connected to one another by marriage and close blood relation and actually living together in one household, composed of a father, a mother (called parents) and a child or children.” You will not find such a definition in today’s dictionaries.
In Genesis 1:27&28 and in Matthew 19:4-6 we find God’s plan for marriage and the family is clearly stated. The destruction of the Biblical family started officially in 1994, the “International Year of the Family”. The NZ Government of the day released the following definition of the family: “a group of people which may include the very young and the elderly, who live in close association, which produces interdependence and a moral obligation to support one another.” The definition is not only anti-family, but unbiblical.
I believe it is a description of how people were living in the days before the flood (see Genesis 6:5-7) and in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:20&21 and 19:24&25) and in many “cultures” today.
Under the present government “much progress has been made” to further the destruction of the Biblical home/family. Allow me to quote from “The Politics of Family” by the Maxim Instute:
1. The Hon Steve Maharey stated that “the government’s decision to focus on families and parenting is not driven by concern in the decline in families with two married parents and children. Better support for parenting must and will apply equally to all family types.”
2. The Hon Phil Goff: stated at the United Nations in 2004 “that the NZ Government is pro-family having even set up the Commission for the Family.” Note that NZ has a Families Commission. I trust you recognise the difference.
3. The NZ government refused to sign the United Nations Doha Declaration, which specifically addresses the importance of government support for the family. The NZ Ambassador to the United Nations said the following about the Declaration “that it was being used to attack long-standing consensus agreement on diversity of the family structure in NZ.”
4. The present government committee charged with implementing the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) frequently labels motherhood as “an unfortunate stereotype”. This committee is aggressively pro-childcare etc.
5. In November 2003 the NZ Government led a group of 17 nations opposing a pro-parent draft resolution in the United Nations titled: “Importance of the role of parents in the care, development and well-being of their children.”
6. NZ now leads 31, mostly European, countries in the push for sexual orientation as a human right.
7. NZ has recently increased funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFA) which objects to strengthening the unique role of parents.
All of the above actions were taken by the present government!
These same Social Engineers presently want to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act which means that the use of any form of force on a child will constitute an assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act.
Why do the majority of the Members of Parliament seem to support or go along with the repeal of the Bill by List MP Sue Bradford? Why are our “elected representatives” so concerned about Corporal Correction in a functional home consisting of a father, a mother and children without these children needing hospital treatment or burial? Why are Parliament, Government and its agencies (especially the Ministry of Social Development) either unwilling or unable, or both, to stem the serious abuse, murder and the shocking neglect of children in dysfunctional homes?
For answers to that we need to turn to the Scriptures! The attitude of the authorities in NZ presently is vividly described in Isaiah 47:10 and in other places.
1. “For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, “None seeth me.” Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; And thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.” Isaiah 47:10.
2. The humanist’s “heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9.
3. “The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God”.” Psalm 14:1.
4. They “call evil good and good evil”; they “put darkness for light and light for darkness”; they “put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20.
5. They have “become vain in their imaginations … professing themselves to be wise … and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible … changed the truth of God into a lie and worship(ped) and serve(d) the creature more than the Creator.”
6. They have dethroned the God of Creation and enthroned themselves following Satan’s advice that “ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5) and consequently become dictators.
7. “… the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live …”. (Ecclesiastes (9:3)
What to do? Again the Scriptures give us answers.
1. That we “are of God … and have overcome them (spirit of anti-christ which is even now already in the world): because greater is He that is in you than he (Satan) that is in the world.” John 4:4.
2. That the Lord Jesus said “I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18.
3. That we may boldly say “The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.” Hebrews 13:7.
4. That we continue “building up yourselves on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost, keep(ing) yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Jude 20&21.
5. That we “be ready always to give an answer to every man (including politicians) that asketh you a reason of the hope, that is in you with meekness and fear.” 1 Peter 3:15.
6. That we are to be “watchmen, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the LORD, keep not silence.” Isaiah 62:6.
7. However, it must always be done with “sound speech (and writing) that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” Titus 2:8.
If we are given the legal opportunity to make submissions to Parliament and have the legal right to write to or ring members of Parliament, let us blow the trumpet.
In conclusion, seeing that the Lord Jesus Christ “has chosen us out of the world” (John 15:19), let us therefore “be not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) but “live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:12.
31 May 2007 – Family Integrity #261 — Things to come
Dear Friends,
This is the kind of thing (see story below #1) I suspect we’ll see a lot more of now that the state has established a beachhead in each of our living rooms to tell us we cannot correct our children if they don’t want to be corrected. Helen Clark said a while back she doesn’t mind marginalising Christians (see below #2). The problem is, most people agree with her since the media have been successful in demonising all Bible-believing or fundamentalist Christians as if they are the West’s version of Osama Bin Laden. They conveniently forget, and we Christians are generally too polite to sound our own horns, that we are virtually alone in trying to protect the unborn, in wanting more adoptions, in signing up as foster parents; we are disproportionately represented in fights against the evils and excesses of homosexuality, civils unions, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse and gambling and abortion; we are over volunteer organisations and the Bible specifically commands us to help the poor and needy, which means there is far more help going on that is totally unseen and unrecognised. We are not the only ones involved in these things, but without the Biblical mandate to do these things, secularists would have no logical reason and don’t have any moral reason to do so…unless they borrow from Christianity, which we are quite happy for them to do.
Parliament’s daily prayer is in the spotlight as MPs are being asked to decide whether it should be abandoned or rewritten.
Before each sitting day, MPs bow their heads for a prayer in which they vow their loyalty to the Queen, and promise to lay aside their private and personal interests and promote the maintenance of true religion and justice, before ending with reference to “Jesus Christ Our Lord”.
Speaker Margaret Wilson has written to MPs asking whether the prayer should be continued and, if so, whether the wording needs an overhaul.
The timing of the move may be seen as provocative, after a backlash from some Christian quarters over Government support for the child-discipline bill.
This week’s interfaith dialogue at Waitangi has been marred by protests over a statement that New Zealand has no state religion.
However, there may be little stomach among MPs for a change, with some suggesting that Parliament has more important business.
One Labour MP said the prayer had been recited for more than 100 years, and there seemed to be no pressing need to change it.
National MP Bill English said the prayer should be kept.
“It’s part of the tradition of Parliament unbroken since it started, and it’s the only time of the day that politicians are forced to think about something besides themselves.”
Green MP Keith Locke said the prayer was outdated and did not represent the views of a substantial proportion of society.
#2
This is Helen Clark being interviewed by sodomites 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.
25 May 2007 – Family Integrity #260 — Royal Assent has been granted
25 May 2007 – Family Integrity #260 — Royal Assent has been granted
Dear Friends,
The NZ Governor General gave the Royal Assent to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill on Monday 21 May 2007.
That means this bill, criminalising parental authority to correct their own children, will become law on Thursday 21 June 2007.
Train your children carefully and very discreetly: ensure they understand that what goes on in your home is not to be talked about outside the home. Ensure your children understand the necessity for your training and correcting of them. Home educate your children. The schools will certainly have “re-education” programmes or new “safety” programmes to help children understand their rights. I’ve talked to parents already here in NZ who say their children have already received this “anti-parent” message from the teachers: that parents are not allowed to force a child to do anything the child doesn’t want to do.
Now in particular, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) will become more well known. I’ve attached it for your convenience (I can’t add attachmaents so it will be a link just after Craig’s signature). Read the whole thing. But in particular, dwell on Articles 12 through 18. These will be used to allow a child unrestricted or much less restricted access to all forms of media that the child may want to read or watch or listen to — regardless of what you, the parents, think is appropriate — because the child has rights, and these rights are to be protected by law and enforced by the Police and CYFS. These UNCROC articles will allow the child access to all kinds of people you do not approve of. So you don’t want others putting the ideas in your children’s heads: again I say: home educate your children, get them out of the schools. It is not just the teachers putting ideas and being obliged to teach the Party line: it is the other school kids coming from their “homes”, some of which are horrendously dysfunctional, and filling your children’s minds with insane ideas. I’m not stretching things here: read Article 19. They used that article to rewrite Section 59 and criminalise “correction” even though the article talks about violence, injury and abuse. So it’s not just me: you have all seen it happen in the last couple of weeks.
Now, the Children’s Commissioner, Cindy Kiro, said on Wednesday, in relation to the criminalising of parental correction,
“I believe that we have reached a tipping point with regard to political attention to children. We need to address children’s issues using processes that involve all political parties intertwined with traditional party-political policy making systems.”
I’d have to agree: we’ve come to a tipping point, where NZ was tipped over, overthrown by the enemy of freedom, tipped into the cauldron of Marxist totalitarianism. There will be no return without some kind of economic or social or political collapse (as with the old USSR in 1989) and much hardship. She is calling for all political parties to do as National’s John Key did: join with the others to form one group as a new process to address children’s issues. Kiro’s job is to implement UNCROC. So that calls for burying our democratic process and bowing as one to UN pronouncements. This is the kind of thing that will make New Zealand an unfit place for free people to live.
Michael Reid’s book “From Innocents to Agents” (Maxim Instititute, Auckland, NZ, 2006) says in the final chapter: “Who’s in charge when it comes to children? …[T]hey are no longer innocents living within the protection of their families, but the state has assumed a new authority and controlling interest in their welfare…If the state has an interest in the child, but parents fail to co-operate, the state is justified in superseding parental authority. In New Zealand, the authority for children has definitely moved away from parents and onto an array of advisors.”
Kiro made some other disturbing remarks in a press release from the Childrens Commissioner Office dated 17 May 2007. After congratulating Parliament for passing the bill criminalising parental use of force and commenting on the budget, she said:
The best results occur when we intervene early in the child’s life before problems become endemic, and also when the likelihood of success is greater.”
I believe the establishment of an integrated framework for children and their families would provide a foundation for more co-ordinated strategies. An integrated framework would bring a systematic approach to monitoring the development of every child and young person in New Zealand through co-ordinated planned assessment at key life stages and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential,” says Dr Kiro.
This is a reference to her plan to assign a social worker to every child at birth and then comprehensively — and compulsorily — assess every child at 4 points through their school-age years. The assessment will cover: academic, social, physical and psychological/emotional wellbeing. The information will go onto Dr Kiro’s Information Hub and can be accessed by various “professionals” such as police, teachers, social workers, etc., each of whom also places information on the Hub. No, none of this contravenes the Privacy Act, for the Privacy Act only outlines 12 Privacy Principles, not 12 Privacy Laws or 12 Privacy Statutes, and only one of these 12 Privacy Principles can be defended in a court of law! (And that one, by the way, is the one guaranteeing each of us the right and power to approach any organisation in NZ and request a copy of all the information that organisation holds on us.)
So, just as the Children’s Commission and the Families Commission and Save the Children and Barnardos and UNICEF and EPOCH and others all said at the first of the oral submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on this Bill to criminalise parental authority to correct their own chidlren, and as they’ve said plenty of times since, this bill is only the first step in a larger strategy…there are yet many steps to take. It is a social engineering process well-known among all politicians. Ruby Harrold-Claesson said in Sweden it is called, “They Tyranny of the Small Steps”.
We must all realise that the many social engineering laws we’ve seen passed by this government are only the beginning. We ain’t seen nothing yet. It will keep decent folks fighting to maintain the status quo, folks and families who are already fully occupied with their jobs and properties and families and really don’t have the time or desire to fight these political battles of defense…and defensive battles of this nature rarely win and then only to face a new defensive battle. And each step will see a bureaucracy established or inflated in size: this anti-parental authority bill will require a larger number of social workers, foster families, lawyers and psychologists as well as more work for the Children’s Commission and Families Commission, and thus more staff for each. These groups become a large voting block who, since they all feed at the government trough, will vote more slops for their trough every time. That’s also part of the social engineering scheme.
21 May 2007 – Family Integrity #259 — World Congress of Families
Dear Friends,
Here is some encouraging news about a world wide movement in the RIGHT direction for a change. You can sign up for regular email updates from this crowd.
At its closing session, the 3,000-plus delegates to World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, May 11-13) endorsed the Warsaw Declaration – a pro-family credo for the 21st century.
With the family under attack in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, delegates felt the urgent need to set forth basic principles for the international pro-family movement.
The Declaration notes that, “The natural family, creation of God, is the fundamental human community, based on the life-long marriage between a man and a woman, in which new individuals are conceived, born and raised.”
In the words of the Declaration: “Such families bring to the world today:
* Faithfulness to the Divine truth versus relativism;
* Real love, being the complete and impartial gift of oneself, versus hedonism;
* Faithfulness in love throughout life, versus lack of responsibility toward those closest to us;
* Respect for the life of every human being from conception to natural death, versus discrimination against and extermination of the weakest;
* Joyful responsibility for every child-to-be, versus fear of the child expressed in the contraceptive mentality;
* A moral community in which young generations can grow, versus false ideologies propagating demoralization;
* And, last but not least, the ‘springtime’ of a civilization of love and life, versus ‘demographic winter.’”
The Declaration issued a number of calls, including for:
* “Churches and other religious communities to proclaim the truth about life, marriage, and the family ….”
* “Governing and political bodies to mainstream the family in public policy as a fundamental and inalienable social good, in order to serve their own nations.”
* “Health professionals to uphold freedom of conscience and to faithfully safeguard human life, especially when it is weakest and most threatened.”
* “Young people to seek wisdom, to choose life, to preserve their hearts and body, and to grow with a focus on truth and faithful love.”
World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson noted that, “The Warsaw Declaration does not contain specific policy recommendations but instead offers a broad vision of the natural family as ‘the fundamental human community’ and creates a framework for pro-family activism.”
To schedule an interview with Allan Carlson on the Warsaw Declaration or any other aspect of the recently concluded World Congress of Families IV in Poland, contact Larry Jacobs at 815-964-5819 or 1-800-461-3113.
2. Please invest in our efforts to reach more people with a positive message of family, religion and society. Click Here to Donate Online http://profam.org/THC/xthc_join.htm
3. Please remember the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in your will. Click Here for Information bequests@worldcongress.org
4. If applicable, please add us to your ‘approved’, ‘buddy’ or ‘safe’ list to prevent your ISP’s filter from blocking future email messages.
18 May 2007 – Family Intetrity #258 — Section 59 Petitions campaign: Chch Netball courts, 9am Saturday
Hi Christchurch!
If you can please make the time to meet at The Netball Courts, Hagley Park (off Hagley Ave) Click here for a map at 9:00am on Saturday 19 May , as our plan is to do a big Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) campaign.
Our goal for Saturday is 2,000 signatures (200 full sheets), but we expect to exceed this. Please make this a good turn-out by coming, and telling anyone else you know who would be keen.
Let’s make sure that we do get enough signatures to force a referendum, otherwise you’ll be looking back wishing, kicking yourself that you didn’t do more to get rid of this stupid bill. I will be too.
We plan to start off at the Netball courts, Hagley Park. Later, if people are keen, we will head into the CBD, or find another good spot to get more signatures. There will be plenty of people: you don’t have to stand anywhere by yourself, it will be great.
We are going to have some placards, and a table or two.
BRING:
Please try and bring a clipboard, something for people to press on as they sign the petition.
Please also download about 10 or 20 Petition sheets from here, and bring them with you.
Please bring 2 or 3 pens with you as well.
And bring/make some placards if you could. Ideas for signs below. It is important that the wording conveys as much information about what is happening regarding the bill, as is possible.
“The Anti-smacking bill will still criminalise good parents”
“Get rid of Bradford’s anti-smacking bill. Sign Petition here”
“Should a smack as a part of good parental discipline be a criminal offense? No!”
“Sign Petition here to force referendum”
Not only will this Saturday be an important day for the CIR, it is a great opportunity to let the rest of Christchurch know that the debate has not died down.
Please forward this email on to anyone who is interested, to spread the word around.
Please reply to theboybiggles@gmail.com if you do intend to come.
17 May 2007 – Family Integrity #257 — A very brief summary
All parents who correct their children will from now on be committing a criminal act, and liable to prosecution.
Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford’s bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.
The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.
Don’t be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don’t believe me.
‘Nothing’ [in the rest of the bill] ‘or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.’
Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.
The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.
It’s now the people against Parliament.
by Renton, Porirua
17 May 2007 – Family Integrity #256 — NZ to be declared religiously neutral
Hard on the heels of radical legislation passed yesterday which will make parents criminals for correcting their children, our Prime Minister is now going to officially push our Christian heritage off the stage.
Attached for your information.
In Christ’s service,
Craig & Barbara Smith
National Directors
Home Education Foundation
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Fax +64 6 357-4389
craig@hef.org.nz http://www.hef.org.nz
Serving, promoting, defending, publishing and lobbying for Christian and secular home educators in NZ and overseas since 1986.
17 May 2007 – Family Integrity #255 — Legal opinion from Family First
Dear Friends,
I’ll just forward this from a Family First press release:
Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what “correction” means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that “correction” will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will “correction” be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends “correction” then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child’s aberrant behaviour. And if that isn’t silly, I don’t know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply –
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC – The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not “correction”.
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”
Please do take a moment to send your thanks to the following MPs who voted against the bill.
United Future had a meltdown, losing one of its three MPs, Gordon Copeland, who resigned over this bill and is now an Independent, as is Taito Phillip Field (who resigned from Labour). Judy Turner voted against the bill and contrary to her party’s leader, Peter Dunne.
ACT’s two MPs voted against the bill…the only party to wholly vote against it.
NZ First was split, these 3 voting against the bill, the other 4 voting for it.
The most disappointing of all is National, all of whom voted for this bill. I feel utterly betrayed by them.
However, these 8 listed here deserve our warm thanks.
Gordon Copeland, Independent: gordon.copeland@parliament.govt.nz
Taito Phillip Field, Independent: taito.phillip.field@parliament.govt.nz
Rodney Hide, ACT: rodney.hide@parliament.govt.nz
Mark, Ron Mark, NZ First: ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz
Pita Paraone, NZ First: pita.paraone@parliament.govt.nz
Rt Hon Winston Peters, NZ First: wpeters@ministers.govt.nz
Heather Roy, ACT: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz
Judy Turner, United Future: judy.turner@parliament.govt.nz
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.
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.
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
11 April 2007 – Family Integrity #218 — Response to Bradfords latest form emailrm email Greetings all,
Here is Bradford’s “five points” form email she’s sending out far and wide. Attached (below)is my response to it.
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 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
—–Original Message—–
From: Sue Bradford [mailto:Sue.Bradford@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Section 59
Thank you for your email.
Firstly I must apologise for the delay in responding to your email. I hope you’ll understand that this has been a very busy time for me and due to the volume of correspondence I am unable to respond personally to every email. I do however read and appreciate all considered correspondence on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I would like to respond to several of the points that have been raised in opposition to the Bill.
1. 80% + of the population is opposed to the repeal of Section 59.
A survey was done by UMR last year that found 37 % of participants agreed that Section 59 of the Crimes Act should be ended. This increased to 71 % who agreed that Section 59 of the Crimes Act should be ended, provided guidelines were developed to prevent prosecution for mild slaps and smacking. There was agreement from 64 % that this legislation should be ended if research showed that removing it would decrease child abuse, and from 53 % if research showed that physical punishment is not an effective method of discipline, and that it can be harmful. Research has shown that physical punishment is not effective, guidelines have and will be further developed to prevent frivolous prosecutions, therefore it seems the majority of the country support the Bill.
The questions that resulted in 80%+ of the population being against the bill, were framed in terms of the ‘anti-smacking bill’, which does not accurately represent the nature of the Bill and cannot therefore be considered a true indication of the peoples’ voice. It does tell however tell us that we do need to do a lot more education regarding the purpose and content of this Bill.
The Bill has been more than 2 years in the parliamentary process, we have done thorough research, and heard hundreds of submissions. Nothing about this process has been undemocratic.
2. The Repeal of Section 59 will result in good parents being criminalised.
The Bill does not in anyway seek to criminalise or scare good parents. It sets out to remove the legal defence of reasonable force from the Crimes Act. The amended Bill also sets out four purposes where the use of reasonable force – for instance, to carry out the normal, everyday tasks of parenting – is permitted.
Domestic violence and domestic discipline are not the same thing – the Minister of Police has given reassurance that Police will not prosecute indiscriminately. Additionally the Police are developing guidelines about how to respond to complaints of assault on children if the Bill becomes law.
For the last 110 years it has been possible to be convicted for smacking your children, but the way the law has worked in practice is this: if the police receive a complaint, or believe an assault against a child has been sufficiently serious to warrant their attention, then they investigate. If after investigating the police believe there is a case to answer, then they press charges so whoever is suspected of committing the assault has to answer to the courts.
This will remain the same after the Bill has passed – nothing will change in terms of the procedure deciding whether an assault against a child goes before the courts.
The police will not suddenly start dragging parents before the courts because they were seen smacking their child on the hand in a supermarket. Charges will only be laid if after investigation the assault allegation appears sufficiently serious and credible to warrant bringing the case to court.
3. Section 59 is okay as it is.
Please refer to this article by the Youth Law Project for case examples of just some of the instances where Section 59 has been used in the courts http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128. I really can’t imagine you would want to align yourself with such instances of abuse.
4. The Swedish case.
In Sweden, where there is similar legislation in place, the child death rate from abuse under the age of 15 is 0.5 per 100,000 children. In New Zealand the child death rate per 100,000 children under 15 is 1.2. That is more than twice the rate. Please refer to the following link for a more detailed analysis: http://epochnz.org.nz/images/stories/response_to_larzelere_on_sweden.pdf
5. Sue Bradford is trying to destroy the family.
That is the last thing I want to do. I want to strengthen families to support our children.
This Bill was my response to the call from over 50 child welfare organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand to ensure our legislation was consistent with international agreements, and other domestic anti-violence legislation. These organisations, including Plunket, come in contact with thousands of families every week and they believe this legislation is a priority. It is not the sole answer to the problems of child abuse, indeed it is just one small step. I am proud to be a part of this movement to create a safer country for all our children.
Yours sincerely.
Sue Bradford MP
Below, in this font, is a form email from Sue Bradford wherein she
answers five criticisms in this font of her Bill to repeal/rewrite
Section 59. In this font I respond to each of her answers.
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 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
Firstly I must apologise for the delay in responding to your email. I hope you’ll understand that this has been a very busy time for me and due to the volume of correspondence I am unable to respond personally to every email. I do however read and appreciate all considered correspondence on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.
I would like to respond to several of the points that have been raised in opposition to the Bill.
1. 80% + of the population is opposed to the repeal of Section 59.
A survey was done by UMR last year that found 37 % of participants agreed that Section 59 of the Crimes Act should be ended. This increased to 71 % who agreed that Section 59 of the Crimes Act should be ended, provided guidelines were developed to prevent prosecution for mild slaps and smacking. There was agreement from 64 % that this legislation should be ended if research showed that removing it would decrease child abuse, and from 53 % if research showed that physical punishment is not an effective method of discipline, and that it can be harmful.
The questions that resulted in 80%+ of the population being against the bill, were framed in terms of the ‘anti-smacking bill’, which does not accurately represent the nature of the Bill and cannot therefore be considered a true indication of the peoples’ voice. It does tell however tell us that we do need to do a lot more education regarding the purpose and content of this Bill.
The Bill has been more than 2 years in the parliamentary process, we have done thorough research, and heard hundreds of submissions. Nothing about this process has been undemocratic.
[Craig Smith]
It is sad and pathetic that Bradford would even challenge the obvious. Well over a dozen Internet polls have all shown the same thing: 80%+ of NZers are against her Bill. I just checked the results of a still-live one (3pm, 11 April 2007) at http://www.antismackingvote.co.nz. It had 24,460 votes (a separate email address is required for each vote), and 89% answered “No” to the question, “Do you support Sue Bradford’s Anti-smacking Bill?” and only 11% answered “Yes”. The Young Labour caucus put a poll on their website, and it too was heavily against the Bill….and Young Labour got caught trying to fiddle the results to look differently. Ask anyone out getting signatures for Larry Baldock’s CIR petition….people queue up to sign it!
The “research” to which Bradford here refers in unknown to me, unless it is the thoroughly unprofessional magazine survey done by the Littlies Lobby in April of 2005, the results of which were analysed by the same crowd UMR mentioned here.
But statistically, because of the way the responses were gathered, the “survey” is useless. It is more useless than the Internet polls, for at least those have fewer selective and exclusion factors involved than did the Littlies Lobby survey. In addition, the very criticism Bradford makes of the many other polls, at least 12, that have been done on the Internet — the criticism about the way the wording was done on the questions themselves — is also a criticism of the Littlies Lobby survey….the questions were biased and leading in themselves. But until we know what research Bradford is referring to here, how the data was collected, how many respondents there were and what questions were put to the people who responded, then we cannot know anything about the validity of this study to which she refers. There are three surveys that I know of that were done via proper research methodology:
The first was by the Ministry of Justice in 2001 titled, “Survey on Public Attitudes Toward the Physical Discipline of Children”. It found that 80% of New Zealanders agreed with the statement: “A person parenting a child should be allowed, by law, to smack the child with an open hand if the child is naughty.”
The full report on this research can be read at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2001/children/index.html
The second survey that I know of was reported by former Commissioner for Children Dr Ian Iassell at a Child Abuse Conference in Wellington on 16 February 2006. It came from a telephone survey of 800 parents and showed that 82% believed it was okay to smack. (Ian Hassell told me personally that it was a sample of 1300 people).
This was reported on in the Dominion Post of 17 February 2006.
The third survey is a Bay of Plenty Times Insight Poll (conducted by Key Research as part of their regular Insight survey). Of the 300 surveyed, 250 (or 83%) disagreed with Ms Bradford’s bill and thought parents should be allowed to smack. This was reported on in the BOP Times of 26 May 2006.
When Bradford says nothing about this process has been undemocratic, she is partly right. But at the first hearing of oral submissions by the Select Committee considering this Bill back in March 2006, it was revealed that Bradford, the author of the Bill, was sitting on the committee. This is clearly a conflict of interest situation, not endorsed by the principles of democracy. But there are plenty of precedents in NZ’s Parliamentary history. The chair of the Committee, Lynn Pillay and the other Labour Party member of the committee, Anne Hartley, were totally shameless in their support of Bradford’s Bill and clearly biased toward its passage. They were not at all objective. There were 10 presentations that day, all in favour of the Bill…it was a real media showcase: Barnardos, Save the Children, IHC, Families Commission, Childrens Commission, UNICEF, EPOCH, etc. Most of these groups said it was an opportunity for the Government to “show real leadership” in passing the bill in the face of majority opposition. In other words, they recognised they were outnumbered, and “real leadership” meant ignoring the democratic process and pass it over the clear wishes of the majority.
Bradford and co are becoming more and more brazen about how they put spin into their statements. They constantly equate the current Section 59’s “reasonable force” with violence, severe beatings, thrashings, etc. Kiro was fond of saying Section 59 gives parents a license to beat their children. None of this is true, of course, for any fool will tell you that “reasonable force” is not beating, thrashing, etc. To maintain that they are the same, as do Clark, Bradford and Kiro, is to say that juries are typically too thick to tell the difference. This shows a marked disrespect for democracy by trying to misrepresent the situation by constantly using inaccurate and emotive
expressions like “severe beatings” and “thrashings” instead of “smacking” when in fact the juries decided it was a smacking using reasonable force by way of correction. And this kind of thing shows a shocking disrespect for our jury system.
This bill as proposed, reproduced below, doesn’t get rid of the hated “reasonable force” that Bradford et al constantly say is a mask for severe beatings, thrashings, and other forms of violence. Bradford’s Bill now in fact outlines scenarios wherein one can use “reasonable force” or, using her own rhetoric, scenarios wherein one can legally thrash and severely beat one’s child: to prevent harm, criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when a beating is incidental to good care and parenting. According to subsection 2 of the proposed re-write of Section 59, the one time you must never use reasonable force is for the purpose of correction. In fact, subsection 3 of the bill says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1.
That is, if there is a question 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, meaning when there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be considered quilty of planning correction for the child and therefore must be convicted.
Reasonable doubt normally requires an acquittal….one is found guilty only when it is beyond reasonable doubt, a legal precedent gained as part of our 800-year history of collected common law wisdom. But with this Bill, reasonable doubt requires a conviction, not an acquittal. Haven’t Bradford and her colleagues on the Select Committee and Sir Geoffrey Palmer who drafted this Bill been clever to turn centuries of hard-won legal precedents on their head with a mere six words in subsection 3?
Brilliant. And reference to our common law heritage and precedent is ruled out of bounds anyway, just in case, by subsection 2. Bradford so hates the idea of parental correction of children, she is leaving nothing to chance.
The passage of this Bill will tip New Zealand into the cauldron of those countries which are totalitarian socialist dictatorships; places like Sweden & Germany. Sweden is best known for kidnapping children into foster care and monster children who control and terrorise their parents (see http://www.nkmr.org/english/the_children_are_embarrassing_sweden.htm and http://www.nkmr.org/english/we_are_bringing_up_a_generation_of_monsters.htm); Germany is known for its absolute intolerance of home schoolers and Christians who would dare to be different from the society the state’s public schools is creating, explaining that “parallel societies” cannot be allowed (see: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54223).
As outlined in these last couple of paragraphs, the Bill itself is designed to destroy democracy. Worse than that, it will give our children into the hands of the state. And once we give the bureaucrats the children, we might just as well give them everything else. For once we’ve made the Big Compromise and given over our children, they WILL come for everything else.
Current Section 59
59 Domestic Discipline
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.
Proposed replacement of Section 59
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).
2. The Repeal of Section 59 will result in good parents being
criminalised.
The Bill does not in anyway seek to criminalise or scare good parents. It sets out to remove the legal defence of reasonable force from the Crimes Act. The amended Bill also sets out four purposes where the use of reasonable force – for instance, to carry out the normal, everyday tasks of parenting – is permitted.
Domestic violence and domestic discipline are not the same thing – the Minister of Police has given reassurance that Police will not prosecute indiscriminately.
Additionally the Police are developing guidelines about how to respond to complaints of assault on children if the Bill becomes law.
For the last 110 years it has been possible to be convicted for smacking your children, but the way the law has worked in practice is this: if the police receive a complaint, or believe an assault against a child has been sufficiently serious to warrant their attention, then they investigate. If after investigating the police believe there is a case to answer, then they press charges so whoever is suspected of committing the assault has to answer to the courts.
This will remain the same after the Bill has passed – nothing will change in terms of the procedure deciding whether an assault against a child goes before the courts.
The police will not suddenly start dragging parents before the courts because they were seen smacking their child on the hand in a supermarket. Charges will only be laid if after investigation the assault allegation appears sufficiently serious and credible to warrant bringing the case to court.
[Craig Smith]
This is a load of double-talk. She is talking of intentions, that she does not intend to criminalise parents. But this is not entirely honest either. She intends for all parents to accept, embrace and adapt to her ideology….that any force of any description, regardless of how light or how reasonable, for the purposes of correction should become a criminal act….and if you parents don’t embrace Bradford’s ideology, then your actions will be criminalised. But of course the vast majority of parents understand that it is their core duty as parents to correct their children’s behaviour, and that it often takes some degree of force and force in one form or another. At the very least it is the parent forcing his/her will on the child. If parents did not have any requirements or prohibitions in relation to their children, then there would be no need for correction. Perhaps this is the utopia of which Bradford dreams, but it is totally disconnected from reality. Parents must and do impose requirements and prohibitions on their children, not just for the sake of the parents, the family peace and harmony, but for the sake of the child who does not yet know right from wrong, good from bad, wise from unwise. In addition, society expects parents to train up children so that they fit in, know how to socialise and deal honestly and true and respectfully with others.
Perhaps it is extremely difficult for someone like Bradford who has made a reputation and a lifestyle of living outside of the law and of pushing to change the boundaries of the law…perhaps it is too hard for her to understand that many people strive always to live within the law. Bradford’s assurances that parents will not be charged and prosecuted left, right and centre is of little comfort since parents’ actions of using light and perfectly reasonable force to correct will become, by definition, actions outside the law. Such parents, who almost certainly constitute the vast majority, do not want even a POSSIBLE investigation and charge to be laid against them for doing what parents have a duty to do: correct their own children. A text without a context is a pretext.
This is what Labour and the Greens are doing when they say that for the last 110 years smacking and time-out have been illegal.
That is like saying it has always been illegal for police to make arrests.
Looking solely at the legal definition of Assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act shows that time-out, smacking and arresting all constitute acts of criminal assault. But taken in the context of the entire Act, it becomes obvious that Section 59 recognises parents have legitimate authority to use “reasonable force” – not unreasonable force –
to correct their children and that several other sections of the Act give police and even bystanders legitimate authority to use force – sometimes the Act doesn’t even specify that it must be “reasonable” – to arrest people for various reasons.
So Labour and the Greens reference the text of Section 2 of the Crimes Act, without the context of the rest of the Act, for the pretext of claiming that smacking and timeout are already illegal.
The second pretext employed by Labour and the Greens is to say that “all this Bill does” is remove the defense of “reasonable force” for correcting a child. So after telling us that the Bill won’t criminalise parents, because those who smack are already criminals, they add that from now on parents who smack or use any force at all to correct will have to be found guilty of assault, for there will no longer be a legal defense.
Labour and Green are saying, “You parents have always been criminals. From now on you have no refuge in law. If you use even reasonable force to correct your children for anything they do, you will be guilty of child assault. If you are seen or even suspected, you will be investigated. If you have corrected your child, you will be charged and you will be found guilty, for there is no longer a legal defense for correcting a child.”
I have written statements from two Police Commissioners, Past Commissioner Robinson and present Commissioner Broad, that state, “If section 59 was repealed in its entirety, parents would not be authorised to use reasonable force by way of correction.” and “[S]macking a child by way of corrective action would be an assault.”
It is very clear and obvious, even from the wording of the Bill before Parliament, that any action toward a child that involved any force at all for corrective purposes will become, by definition, an act of assault, unjustified in law. Gregg O’Connor, President of the Police Association has said Police will have no discretion: when they see or hear of a smack…it will be an assault if Bradford’s Bill is passed, it will be regarded as a case of “domestic violence”, and it will almost certainly be investigated and reported to CYFS. The Manawatu Evening Standard rang the Police recently and asked them if they would have to investigate any complaint about a parent lightly smacking a child for correction. They answered, “Yes.” Would they need to inform CYFS? Again, the Police answered, “Yes.” This was on the Standard’s front page of 30 March 2007.
Parents and children will have to go through this trauma of possibly being reported, or of actually being reported and investigated, regardless of what Bradford says, for any show of force, regardless of how light or reasonable, for doing what parents naturally do: correct errant behaviour. Some of these parents will end up with criminal charges.
Some will lose their children. This will happen because the parents used reasonable force to correct, not that they committed child abuse, because reasonable force used for correction will become a crime.
3. Section 59 is okay as it is.
Please refer to this article by the Youth Law Project for case examples of just some of the instances where Section 59 has been used in the courts http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/default.aspx?_z=128. I really can’t imagine you would want to align yourself with such instances of abuse.
[Craig Smith]
In this website Bradford mentions, lawyer John Hancock was trying to find all the cases where Section 59 was used as a defense. He only found 18 cases over the 13 year period from 1990 through 2002. One of those, the famous “plank of wood” (which in fact was a piece of kindling 30cm by 2cm, the size of a standard wooden spoon), actually never had Section 59 brought up, for the jury acquitted the parent from a charge of assault under Section 194(a) of the Crimes Act as soon as they heard the facts. See http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/hawkes-bay-father-4-x-2.html. So that means Section 59 only came up17 times in those 13 years or 1.3 times a year. In 10 of those cases, the person charged was found guilty; 1 needed a retrial; in 1 case the child was removed; and the parents were justified in only 5 cases in those 13 years, less than once every two years, showing that Section 59 does not let abusers off. In these cases of acquittal using a Section 59 defense, the juries composed of 12 people, after hearing all the evidence in excruciating detail, not wee snippets as are given in Hancock’s review, unanimously found that the parents had used only reasonable force, not abuse or violence, and that it was used for corrective purposes, not to inflict injury, vent anger, take revenge or whatever.
Section 59 does work just fine as it is. But Bradford still insists that each of these parents are guilty of violently beating or thrashing their children and should have been found guilty of assault even though the juries found them innocent. Bradford clearly has another agenda in mind. She apparently does not like the idea that Section 59 allows parents to use a measure of reasonable force to back up their natural authority as parents. Because abuse and violence against children are already illegal under several other parts of the Crimes Act, including Section 59, removing Section 59 would only INCREASE by a vast measure what is considered violence against a child. This appears to be Bradford’s agenda: criminalise parental use of their natural authority to correct their own children using reasonable force. When this is done, the only people who will be allowed to use force….and not even reasonable force….to correct children will be the police and social workers, agents of the state.
On the one hand Bradford wants people to have maximum freedoms, even to ruin themselves: keep the drinking age lower, legalise prostitution, leave the party drug P at the less-dangerous drug classification, legalise marijuana, lower the penalty for child pornography, not require birth mothers to name the fathers on the birth certificates. And she apparently wants maximum freedom for children to be out from under their parent’s corrective authority. But parents’ duty and responsibility to effectively train, discipline and correct their children’s behaviour is to be under the constant threat of a charge of criminal assault, while it is to her perfectly acceptable for state agents (police and social workers) to use force to correct wayward children.
4. The Swedish case.
In Sweden, where there is similar legislation in place, the child death rate from abuse under the age of 15 is 0.5 per 100,000 children. In New Zealand the child death rate per 100,000 children under 15 is 1.2. That is more than twice the rate. Please refer to the following link for a more detailed analysis: http://epochnz.org.nz/images/stories/response_to_larzelere_on_sweden.pdf
[Craig Smith]
Bradford has been caught using shonky research statistics before. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBKFKc2igU.
“Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,” said Morgan Johansson, Sweden’s public health minister on 5 May 2006. Sweden’s children’s ombudsman Lena Nyberg added: “In Sweden, many people believe that children have not been subjected to violence since the ban on corporal punishment was introduced, but this is not true.” (see http://www.thelocal.se/3734/20060505/). There is a ton of research material about Sweden and other parts of the world under the “Research” and “Sweden” index tabs on http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz. See especially Dr Larzelere’s “Sweden Smacking Ban: More Harm than Good” and Chris Beckett’s “The Swedish Myth: the Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death” both under the “Sweden” index tab at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.
The two researchers involved in analysing Sweden’s situation in English are Dr Robert Larzelere of U. of Oklahoma and Dr Joan Durrant of U. of Manitoba. Using the same database, they have come to nearly opposite conclusions. Dr Larzelere’s works are on the Family Integrity website, http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz and http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/search/label/Robert%20E.%20Larzelere%20Ph.D. I spoke to Durrant face to face when she was out here a couple years ago. She confirmed that it was a war of world views and that in her opinion, one world view would have to triumph and the other would have to be put down. She is thoroughly against the traditional view of parental authority and favours the view of children as autonomous individuals living in a socialist utopia where nanny state runs and regulates virtually every thing. There is no thought of peaceful co-existence in her mind with cultures and philosophies and religions that compete with her ideology. Her ideas must prevail and all others that contradict or compete with hers must be criminalised.
Bradford is operating in the same vein. She and Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro and Beth Wood of UNICEF and others of the pro-repeal lobby take their marching orders from the extreme position of the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child. You must read their commentary on this issue which was published in June 2006 (see http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo). They equate corporal punishment with being “cruel and degrading” and that it is by nature “violence against children”; and that is just in Paragraph 1! In Paragraph 8 they say how such violence, “however light”, must be prohibited in families as well as in schools. In Paragraph 31, all these evils are equated with “reasonable or moderate chastisement or correction.” Such evils must clearly be legislated against, Paragraph 34. And Paragraph 29 says the Committee’s ruling on this trumps the Bible or any other religious convictions or sacred writings. Paragraph 52 recommends that local governments recruit schools and youth groups to monitor and report on how individual families conform to this ideology. Bradford and the others obviously approve of these totalitarian tendencies.
5. Sue Bradford is trying to destroy the family.
That is the last thing I want to do. I want to strengthen families to support our children.
This Bill was my response to the call from over 50 child welfare organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand to ensure our legislation was consistent with international agreements, and other domestic anti-violence legislation. These organisations, including Plunket, come in contact with thousands of families every week and they believe this legislation is a priority. It is not the sole answer to the problems of child abuse, indeed it is just one small step. I am proud to be a part of this movement to create a safer country for all our children.
[Craig Smith]
Bradford here demonises parental authority that would use reasonable force to correct as being outside “domestic anti-violence legislation.” She also mentions international agreements, meaning the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). This document does not mention domestic discipline or child discipline or correction or corporal punishment at all. The UN Committee for the Rights of the Child freely admits “Article 19 and article 28(2) do not refer explicitly to corporal punishment. The travaux preparatoires for the Convention do not record any
discussion of corporal punishment during the drafting sessions.” Then they give themselves a blank cheque to make UNCROC say what ever they want: “But the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time.” See http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo, paragraph 20.
Plunket and Barnardos and Save the Children and the others are mostly heavily funded by the Government and therefore subject to Government agendas. It suits the present Labour led NZ Government to remain in high gear in pushing through social engineering legislation such as this which will totally re-define the relation between parents and their own children and vastly increase the legal powers of state agents to intervene in the family for the flimsiest of reasons. In addition, these agencies thrive on family dysfunction. As more is created, as will happen via this bill, it means more jobs and projects for these organisations. They want to view themselves as essential, indispensable providers; they do not want to work themselves out of a job.
Barnardos in particular was infiltrated by Brenda Radcliffe who proceeded to take over and change the whole culture of the organisation, purging it of people who did not agree to making the repeal of Section 59 their number one priority. The Barnardos written submission on Section 59 was a formal repudiation of their founder, Dr Thomas Barnardo’s thoroughly Christian evangelical world view and its replacement by the twin ideological guidelines of “secularism and rationalism”. Check it out at http://www.barnardos.org.nz/AboutUs/writtensubmission.pdf with the words “NOT FOR PUBLIC USE” plastered across each page. They repudiate their founder’s philosophy and world view but want to continue trading on the founder’s massive goodwill and reputation as a Christian organisation. It is dispicable.
As Bradford says, this legislation is not the answer to the child abuse problem – it doesn’t even address it at all — but it is the first of many small steps as the pro-repeal showcase submitters all said on that first appearance before the Select Committee back in March 2006. Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson was stunned when she heard them say this, for it is precisely the strategy used by the totalitarians in Sweden to take over personal freedoms: it even has a name, “The tyranny of the small steps.”
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro has talked about a programme to give every child a personal social worker at birth who will assess the child on academics, physical and mental and social health at four points during the school years. See http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/26-october-2006-commissioner-for.html.
Former Family Court Judge Graeme MacCormick has an even more invasive programme to assess parents seven times before the child turns 14, with any form of child benefit payments being cancelled should the parents refuse the assessment. It was dubbed the parenting license. See http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/04/19-september-2006-nzherald-parents.html.
Bradford is definitely out to destroy the traditional family as we know it. In Parliament on 1 March 2007 Sue Bradford made the following comments during the first reading of 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. ” (See http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2007_03_01.htm).
Bradford’s ideology behind virtually every word she utters is so foreign and radical to anything average New Zealanders understand as normal and healthy that she is not to be taken seriously.
Yours sincerely.
Sue Bradford MP
5 April 2007 – Family Integrity #216 — Response to Labour form letter
Dear Friends,
Below is a form letter being sent out by various Labour MPs in response to letters they receive on the Section 59 issue. I’ve responded to many of the inaccurate and supurious things these Labour ideologists say and thought you might be interested in the arguments yourselves.
Thank you for your email regarding section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is currently available as a defence to parents or caregivers charged with offences involving the use of physical force to discipline their children.
You have strayed from the exactness which truth requires, and you will pay the price. During this entire debate, the pro-repeal lobby has been consistently incredibly sloppy, ill-informed and irresponsible in what they say about the issues surrounding the debate. Section 59 is used as a defense, but for the use of force that is for the purpose of correction and that is reasonable in the circumstances. This is a vital piece that you left out, because it causes further statements of yours to become lies.
In the type of case in which charges are usually laid, people who have violently abused their children, such as beating them with a piece of wood, have used this section to successfully
defend their actions.
This defence was recently used by a woman who beat her son with a riding crop. I have yet to meet a New Zealander who considers that acceptable. I’m sure you don’t either and would agree therefore that the law that permits this must change.
Here is where your omission of the law stating that the force must be reasonable in the circumstances, plus your inaccurate and emotive use of words, mirroring the rest of the pro-repeal lobby’s sloppy, ill-informed and irresponsible debate, causes you to be guilty of propagating lies. In both of these cases, the jury acquited the parents. That is to say, you can meet any of those 24 people who did consider the use of the riding crop not only acceptable but a case of reasonable force for correction. Were you there at the trial? Or did you collect your information from hearsay? Or do you actually read the sensationalised newspaper reports and form your own opinion of the judge and juries intelligence from those reports? Or worse still, does your information about these cases come from Bradford or Kiro?
Can you tell me when and where the piece of wood case took place? How big was the wood? What was the incident that led to the smack? Were there any marks involved? What did the boy say about it? What was the actual reason for acquittal? Why did the jury decide the parent (was it mum or dad?) was innocent if the boy, according to you, was violently abused, beaten with a piece of wood? You are clearly saying that the jury was populated by a pack of idiots who are too incompetent to tell the difference between a violently abusive beating and reasonable force. You are also implying that the jury system of justice is useless….or are you just saying it is useless when you don’t like their decision, even though you know next to nothing of the details of the case?
I have spoken at length to the woman who, as you say, “beat her son” with a riding crop. How do you define “a beating”? What are the essential ingredients that set “beating” apart from “reasonable force”? Which of these were involved in this case? By what standard do you compose your list of essential ingredients? Is it simply your own opinion or is it informed from legal precedent? Can you tell me how many strokes she applied? Can you give me any indication of the strength behind the smacks? Can you tell me if the boy willingly submitted or not? Can you describe the relative differences between the size and weight of the boy and the size and weight of the mum? Do you know the ages of the boys in either case? What was the incident that caused the smacking? Again, where did you collect your information about this case and again, why do you think the jury acquitted her, especially when neither she nor her lawyer called any witnesses or spoke in her defence: she let the prosecution do all the talking…and he convinced the jury she was innocent! And why didn’t the prosecution appeal the decision in either case?
The Justice and Electoral Committee has concluded its consideration of Ms Bradford’s bill aimed at repealing section 59, and reported the Bill back to Parliament on 22 November 2006. The majority of the Committee recommended that the Bill proceed with amendments developed by the Law Commission, which is led by Sir Geoffrey Palmer.
The Bill seeks to protect our children
No, it does not. It seeks, as per Bradford’s explanatory note, to remove protection from parents and to reduce their legal authority to use corrective force with their children to the same level as any passing stranger: to nil.
and remove a defence that is used by a small group of people who are charged with violently assaulting their children.
It is significant that you concede that Section 59 is only used by a small group of people. Lawyer John Hancock of the pro-repeal lobby, could only find 18 cases where such a defense was used in the 13 year period from 1990 to 2002, that is 1.4 cases a year. More that half of these returned a guilty verdict. So the defense is only successfully raised 0.7 times per year. We are talking about an insignificant number of cases. If you are really concerned about violence against children, and I note your own personal track record as a school teacher in this regard, you would do well to address the out-of-control bullying and drug use in schools. And why is it you care nothing for the 18,000 children slaughtered in their own mother’s wombs each year? I would be interested to hear your apologetic for non-involvement on that one and why you think it is not violence of the most obscene and extreme kind when a mother is encouraged to pre-meditate upon the murder of her own child and then recruits others to help her search and destroy her own flesh and blood.
Complaints against violent parents are investigated now. That will not change, but they will no longer be able to use the defence that they were using “reasonable force” to excuse their actions. Good parents will not be at risk because of this change.
This is more irresponsible spin doctoring. You are saying that the label of “reasonable force” is routinely used to justify, using your words again, violent abuse and beatings; and none of the repeal lobby I have asked has yet been able to demonstrate that this charge is at all accurate or has any credibility. If it were true, then the rewritten version of Section 59 that you are now promoting is justifying violent abuse and beatings (which in your account of things is routinely equated with “reasonable force”, a phrase still in the Bill) to stop offensive, disruptive, criminal or harmful behaviour or when incidental to good care and parenting. You cannot have it both ways: “reasonable force” is either violent abuse or it is reasaonable force. But you and the rest of the repeal lobby want to use the term in diametrically opposed ways whenever it suits you.
Good parents have everything to fear from this because it bans a lot more than light, reasonable smacking….it bans, no, it criminalises the use of reasonable force (how reasonable is that) used to correct children. This is criminalising a core responsibility of parenthood: correction. How does one correct bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, etc., into good habits without the use of force? At the very least it is the parent forcing his will upon the child. Good parents have requirements and prohibitions and do not let their children either wander or willfully go into error. They do not simply STOP them, as this bill allows…..good parents correct the errant behaviour. They make their children do the right and they do not let them do the wrong. Force, as per the Crimes Act Definition in Section 2, does not need to be physical force: intimidation or gestures will do. So, as I say, a lot more than smacking will be criminalised….virtually all efforts to correct children will be hamstrung.
We are not talking about punishment, for that is not permitted in either the current Section 59 or the rewrite….punishment was only mentioned in the amendment banning the cane in schools, for it was clear teachers were engaged in excessive and abusive and illegal punishment, which is not justified in the current Section 59 anyway.
I believe we all want to ensure that good and caring parents are supported whilst protecting children from abuse. The Government believes that the amendment to the Bill is a move in the right direction and the Government will be supporting the Bill with the amendment recommended by the select committee.
As I’ve said above, this rewrite of Section 59 is incredibly damaging to parental authority, which will damage their ability to parent effectively, and ineffective parenting will damge children. This bill will have no effect whatsoever on the kind of undisciplined and out-of-control parents who bash kids to death. This Bill is a move to establish Bradford’s and the UN’s extreme feminist ideology to attack the foundational structures of the traditional family: parental authority. This bill will harm all sectors of society, for none are untouched when every family suffers.
Under the amended Bill, section 59 would be replaced with a new provision to clarify that reasonable force may be used for the purposes of:
preventing or minimising harm to a child or another person; preventing a child from engaging or continuing to engage in criminal conduct, or offensive or disruptive behaviour; and performing the normal daily tasks of good care and parenting.
Subsections 1a and 1b of the bill are totally redundant as they are already covered by other parts of the crimes act. And in the areas of disruptive and offensive behaviour or what constitutes good care and parenting, the question no one has bothered to address is: by what standard? To me, good care and parenting are inseparable from correction, training and discipline. It would be child abuse NOT to incorporate these things. Who is defining the word “correction”, since it is now to be regarded as an evil action toward children. What do you say “correction” means? No one else I’ve asked has bothered to give a definition. And by what standard shall I determine “offensive behaviour”? If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography? You need to come up with something good on this one.
The Select Committee also recommended that a public information focus should be strengthened further.
The Government has already invested $10.8m over three years to establish the SKIP (Strategies with Kids – Information for Parents) programme. This programme promotes positive parenting and assists parents by informing them about effective, non-violent ways of disciplining children. The 2006 Budget provided an additional $14.8m over the next four years to enable this valuable programme to continue. I have included information about the programme, below.
It would be irresponsible to close this letter without reference to the unacceptable level of violence in our community, violence mostly against women and children. Everyone I discuss this matter with agrees we must do something.
Yours sincerely
David Benson-Pope
MP for Dunedin South
So get the police to charge the real bullies who are doing real physical, sexual and emotional damage on school grounds every day of the week. Enforce the many sections of the crimes act that already condemn violence and abuse against children. When you allow extremely realistic, gory and sexualised violence to be pumped into our society via TV, magazines, video games, DVDs, etc., and the bullying on campus and the drugs and the abortions and seriously consider assisted suicide and euthanasia, and go so very soft on real violent criminals when you catch them…..you have no credibility saying, “Something has to be done,” and then threatening to charge good, everyday parents with assault, the ones who actually care enough to train self-discipline and self-control into their children, the ones who are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Your commitment to this highly damaging, totally anti-family, anti-parent bill calls your judgement and competency into question. It also flags you as a person with a very scary attachment to a radical feminist, totalitarian ideology. By ignoring the 80% of voters who oppose this and ignoring the clear indications of how divisive this bill is going to be to our social cohesion, you show yourself to be no friend of democratic processes or the peace we all desire.
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 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
4 April 2007 – Family Integrity #215 — CYFSWatch Poll
Another Poll
This one is on the CYFSWatch homepage, on the left, just a wee ways from the top.
While you’re there, have a look around the CYFSWatch website. This is so frightening…and a glimpse of what more of us will experience from these over-zealous social workers who really are a law unto themselves at times because of the powers given to them in the Child, Young Persons and ther Families Act 1989 and the Care of Children Act 2004.
This is what Labour and the Greens are doing now with the Bill to criminalise parents. They are saying that the historical and accepted understanding of smacking and time-out as legal expressions of Section 59’s “reasonable force” have, in fact, been illegal all this time.
That is like saying it has always been illegal for police to make arrests.
Looking solely at the legal definition of Assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act shows that time-out, smacking and arresting all constitute acts of criminal assault. But taken in the context of the entire Act, it becomes obvious that Section 59 recognises parents have legitimate authority to use “reasonable force” – not unreasonable force – to correct their children and that several other sections of the Act give police and even bystanders legitimate authority to use force – sometimes the Act doesn’t even specify that it must be “reasonable” – to arrest people for various reasons.
So Labour and the Greens reference the text of Section 2 of the Crimes Act, without the context of the rest of the Act, for the pretext of claiming that smacking and time-out are already illegal.
The second pretext employed by Labour and the Greens is to say that “all this Bill does” is remove the defense of “reasonable force” for correcting a child. So after telling us that the Bill won’t criminalise parents, because those who smack are already criminals, they add that from now on parents who smack or use any force at all to correct will have to be found guilty of assault, for there will no longer be a legal defense.
Labour and Green are saying, “You parents have always been criminals. From now on you have no refuge in law. If you use even reasonable force to correct your children for anything they do, you will be guilty of child assault. If you are seen or even suspected, you will be investigated. If you have corrected your child, you will be charged and you will be found guilty, for there is no longer a legal defense for correcting a child.”
2 April 2007 – Family Integrity #213 — Labour backs off
2 April 2007 – Family Integrity #213 — Labour backs off
Dear Friends,
Here is a press release from Bradford’s Office.
The great news is that the Labour government has decided to back away from pickiing up this Bill, so it may go on past May and into June.
Bradford here treats us all with her usual contempt by saying we will continue to spread misinformation about the Bill. Yet she says out of one side of her mouth, “this is an anti-beating, anti-child-violence bill, not a piece of legislation that will see tens of thousands of well-meaning parents dragged into court for the occasional light smack,” and from the other side comes out with, “my original goal: To remove the defence of ‘reasonable force’ for the purposes of correction under s59 of the Crimes Act.”
The only way one can make sense of this is to equate, as Bradford does every time she speaks on this, “reasonable force” with “beating” and “child-violence”, for she claims that “severe beatings” and “violent abuse” and “thrashings” all regularly hide behind the label of “reasonable force”. Yet her amended Bill does not get rid of this terminology, a move I thought would be her primary objective, since she calls it “an anti-beating, anti-child-violence” bill and since she reguarly claims that these terrible things parade around unnoticed behind this terminology. No! Her amended Bill allows for “reasonable force” or if I do as she regularly does and swap that term with others, we find that her Bill now allows for “severe beatings” to stop harmful or criminal or offensive or disruptive behaviour and allows ” violent abuse” that is incidental to good care and parenting.
Her arguments are as illogical as ever.
Now, she also says her office is flooded with SUPPORT mail. OK. Let’s flood her office with mail opposed to her Bill, pleading with her not to criminalise us and not to terrorise our families by having police and CYFS hanging over our heads all the time for simply using “reasonable force” to correct our children. For crying out loud, that is a core duty of parenting.
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
2 April 2007
Bradford still confident of Bill’s success
The Government’s decision not to pick up the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill will give opponents more time to further their misinformation campaign, but the Bill’s sponsor Green Party MP is confident it will get through in the end.
“I intend to continue to work alongside the many organisations and individuals who support my Bill during the next two to three months to get the message out that this is an anti-beating, anti-child-violence bill, not a piece of legislation that will see tens of thousands of well-meaning parents dragged into court for the occasional light smack,” Ms Bradford says.
The Bill is now unlikely to go through its Third Reading until June.
“This means that the opponents’ campaign of misinformation is likely to continue until the bitter end. I am really concerned that this will continue to cause unnecessary fear among many ordinary decent parents.
“I am not surprised that the Government has chosen not to pick up my Bill. All along I felt this was far from certain given the length of time the remaining debate is likely to take and the controversial nature of the issue.
“What is most important to me is that the Bill passes in the end, in a shape that retains my original goal: To remove the defence of ‘reasonable force’ for the purposes of correction under s59 of the Crimes Act,” Ms Bradford says.
Letters and emails and other forms of support continue to pour into my office at Parliament, far outnumbering communications from the Bill’s opponents.
United Future MP Gordon Copeland’s amendment to my Bill around the issue of ‘time out’, while well-meaning, is unnecessary.
The amendment put forward by the Select Committee already covers this – in sections (c) and (d) under ‘Parental Control’.
While Mr Copeland does have an opinion from Peter McKenzie that the Bill as drafted does not deal with ‘time out’ the Law Commission has rejected this opinion, Ms Bradford says.
For more information
Sue Bradford, MP, 04 470 6720, 027 243 4239
Fran Tyler, 04 470 6679, 021 473 900
2 April 2007 – Subject: Family Integrity #212a — Naked Grab for Power
2 April 2007 – Subject: Family Integrity #212 — 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.
31 March 2007 – Family Integrity #209 — The Latest
What’s the latest?
Labour thought out loud about putting Bradford’s Bill under urgency and so ram it through before the Easter break that way. But all that did was stir up opposition to this Bill even more.
Labour is now thinking out loud that they might change Bradford’s Private Member’s Bill (which can only be considered on every second Wednesday) into a Government Bill, which can be considered at any time. They say they’ll make a decision on that this Tuesday (3 April). Political commentators say this will work, and that it will enable the Bill to get pushed through by Thursday.
About 3 National MPs who said they were going to vote for the Bill have come out to say they are against it now. But the Bill will get 63 votes without any National votes: Labour, Greens, Maori, Progressive, Dunne (UF), Woolerton and Donnelly (NZF) make 63. Only 61 are needed to pass.
The Bill is giving Labour and Greens a golden opportunity to show how clever they are at telling lies and feeding out misinformation. They say it won’t ban smacking, though Police have confirmed it clearly will. So Labour say that smacking has, in fact, been illegal all these years anyway, and that the Bill will only remove a legal defense. So they want us to believe that they are not making smacking illegal, just making it impossible for parents to legally defend themselves if they ever smack a child, however lightly.
They are also getting more and more emotive in how they equate the current Section 59’s “reasonable force” with violence, severe beatings, thrashings, etc. Kiro was fond of saying Section 59 gives parents a license to beat their chidlren. None of this is true, of course, for any fool will tell you that “reasonable force” is not beating, thrashing, etc. To maintain that they are the same, as do Clark, Bradford and Kiro, is to say that juries are typically too thick to tell the difference.
This bill as proposed, reproduced below, doesn’t get rid of the hated “reasonable force” that Bradford et al constantly say is a mask for severe beatings, thrashings, and other forms of violence. It in fact outlines scenarios wherein one can use “reasonable force” or, in their rhetoric, scenarios wherein one can legally thrash and severely beat one’s child: to prevent harm, criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour or when a beating is incidental to good care and parenting. The one time you must never use reasonable force is for the purpose of correction.
In fact, subsection 3 of the bill says subsection 2 must prevail over subsection 1. That is, if there is a question 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, meaning when there is doubt about the intent, the parent must be considered quilty of planning correction for the child and therefore must be convicted. Reasonable doubt normally acquits….with this Bill, reasonable doubt requires a conviction. Haven’t Bradford and her colleagues on the Select Committee and Sir Geoffrey Palmer who drafted this Bill been clever to turn centuries of hard-won legal precedents on their head with a mere six words in subsection 3? Brilliant.
The passage of this Bill will tip New Zealand into the cauldron of those countries which are totalitarian socialist dictatorships; places like Sweden & Germany. Sweden is best known for kidnapping children into foster care and monster children who control and terrorise their parents; Germany is known for its absolute intolerance of home schoolers and Christians who would dare to be different from the society the state’s public schools is creating, explaining that “parallel societies” cannot be allowed.
The Bill will give our children into the hands of the state. And once we give the bureaucrats the children, we might just as well give them everything else. For once we’ve made the Big Compromise and given over our children, they WILL come for everything else.
Continue to email and ring and fax and write to the MPs. Lobby to the last minute. See our home page for things to do: http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.
Proposed replacement of section 59
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).
29 March 2007 – Family Integrity #208 — Speeches at Parliament today
Greetings all,
Three things:
1. The Government dropped its bid to ram the Bill through Parliament under Urgency. This is old news now, being about 2 days stale.
2. The Government has apparently changed this anti-smacking, anti-parental authority Bill from a Private Member’s Bill (which can only be debated every second week) into a Government Bill (which can be debated every day.
3.There have been very successful marches at Masterton, Nelson and Feilding over the last few days and one each in Christchurch and Wellington today, Wednesday 28 March. At this link you’ll find videos of the speeches made at the Wellington march.
24 March 2007 – Family Integrity #206 — 13th Press Release ideas: Sold Out
24 March 2007 – Family Integrity #206 — 13th Press Release ideas: Sold Out
Dear Friends,
Write to your MP!! Write, email, fax, phone….keep the pressure on as much as you can.
We’ve known Labour and Greens don’t play by rules they stick to. So they plan to ram the Bill through under Urgency Wednesday 28 March, so it could all be over in a few days. And unless Labour has a meltdown, the core responsibility of parenting, correcting your children, will become a crime.
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389 http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
Selling Out
The Maori Party is really in the gun. What they’ve done to their own culture, selling out to a radical form of feminism that most Pakeha won’t even endorse, letting two other political parties direct their own party’s steps over the clear wishes of 80% or more of their own people is really quite reprehensible, even more reprehensible than the goose-stepping-on-your-face distain Labour shows for its constituents.
Bradford’s Bill to criminalise the act of parental correction of children will re-define the entire parent-child and child-family relationships. Cutting the child out of the context of its own whanau, separating it from its parents and bestowing upon the child a set of “rights” determined by the political state without consulting the parents, whanau or cultural norms is a completely foreign way to treat tamariki.
“The best interests of the child” is the mantra of these Internationalists who fawn at the hand of the United Nations…and that means a child considered on its own, without reference to parents, whanau or cultural links. The child is not just seen as an autonomous individual, but one with individual rights. Who bestows these rights? The state. Who will protect these rights? The state and its agents (social workers, police, teachers and increasingly the staff of Plunket, Barnardos, doctors’ offices, etc.). And from whom does the child need protection that its rights should not be infringed? Parents. Parents are the prime suspects at all times in the eyes of nanny state and its agents.
Be afraid, parents, of Bradford’s Bill to criminalise you. Be very afraid. Be outraged, Maori people, for you have been sold over to bondage.
—–Original Message—–
From: David Lane [mailto:david.lane@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 6:57 PM
To: Craig Smith; ‘Craig. Barbara. Smith@Xtra. Nz’
Subject: Top Story of Scoop Politics
Friday, 23 March 2007, 5:15 pm
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.
23 March 2007
Removal of S. 59 Defence Will Split up Families
A tragic case involving the criminalisation of two experienced, mature and loving foster parents for lightly smacking their foster boy for his extensive vandalism, and the splitting up for good of their family, serves as a serious warning to New Zealanders of what will happen if Sue Bradford’s “silly” and “ridiculous” bill, that seeks to repeal s. 59, becomes law. (These very same pejorative words were used by the Prime Minister Helen Clark in a live interview, in the context of her giving support to Bradford’s bill, to rubbish section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provides a justification for parents to use “reasonable force” in the context of corrective domestic discipline of their kids).
Helen Clark, who has never had children (nor have her two male Labour party whips who are forcing all Labour MPs to support Bradford’s flawed bill,) has been quite wrong to rubbish s. 59. About 80-90 percent of New Zealanders strongly disagree with her. Based on extensive nation-wide polls over the last two years, they all want s. 59 retained and oppose Bradford’s flawed bill that has now become Clark’s troublesome ‘baby’. The remaining 10 to 20 percent who have swallowed Bradford’s rhetoric find it hard to believe that the government authorities will take kids away from good parents for formal complaints of smacking “correctly”, should the bill become law. “It’s just not going to happen for good parents who smack correctly” they scream at opponents of the bill. These vitriolic ideologues are already obsessed with proselytising their beliefs that only bad and inadequate parents smack their kids for corrective purposes.
23 March 2007 – Family Integrity #202 — A Sue Bradford child, coming to your country soon!
23 March 2007 – Family Integrity #202 — A Sue Bradford child, coming to your country soon!
Dear Friends,
Forgive me for passing this video clip on, as I find the punch-line anti-Christian, offensive and thoroughly anti-children. However, since the video is Swedish, the wee commentary below by Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who has taken an intense interest in our situation and feeds us material nearly every day, really should give us cause for great concern.
—–Original Message—–
From: Christian News New Zealand [mailto:christiannewz@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 6:46 AM
To: Christian News New Zealand
Subject: A Sue Bradford child, coming to your country soon!
Voted Best Commercial in Europe
What great timing. Just in time for the anti-smacking bill!
I hope you realise that this is a little Swedish boy and his “impotent” Swedish father. He swore at his father “Jävla Pappa!” (Damned Daddy).
That’s the way Swedish children behave. (They would say the same to their teachers or any other adult.) The father didn’t dare do anything else than put the things back on the shelves, blow up his cheeks and look helpless. Also, notice the other shoppers’ reactions. No one dares say anything.
23 March 2007 – Family Integrity #201 — 12th Press Release Ideas
23 March 2007 – Family Integrity #201 — 12th Press Release Ideas
Dear Friends,
We’ve known Labour and Greens don’t play by rules they stick to. So they plan to ram the Bill through under Urgency Wednesday 28 March, so it will all be over in less than a week. And unless Labour has a meltdown, the core responsibility of parenting, correcting your children, will become a crime.
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
I’ve listened to enough. People are way too polite in saying Green MP Sue Bradford’s motivations are pure and her heart is set on the protection of defenceless children from violence and abuse.
This is simply not true: it is only the smoke screen for her sinister agenda. It is obvious that this Bill does nothing to help abused children or nail abusive parents, but it will make criminals of the best parents in the country.
Physical violence and abuse toward children is not Bradford’s or Labour’s concern: it is the God-ordained authority and influence that parents have over their own children that Bradford is out to neutralise. She hates the idea that parents can legally inculcate and enforce their own traditional Christian family values into their children without being forced to give her radical-feminist-Green values equal time. So her Bill specifically targets “correction”: parents are to be forbidden to correct a child’s bad behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress or hygiene habits into good ones, regardless of how light or reasonable is the force they use to make the correction.
If parents cannot correct their children, who then can? Government agents getting their directions from the Top, where Sue Bradford intends to dwell. Truancy officers, social workers and police all have legal powers to use even unreasonable force to remove children from families and to ensure attendance at state schooling and propaganda centres (staffed by more Government agents known as school teachers), anger management and drug dependency courses as well as living where they’re told, be it in foster families or a prison.
While a simple dictator would be happy controlling the military and the economy and thickly lining his own pockets, Bradford’s & Labour’s agenda, like the worst Reds of Mao’s China and the USSR, is totalitarianism: they know what’s best for you and me and will control us, our personal thought lives and our children. In this way they hope to claim personal starring roles in Hegel’s idea that “the State is god walking on earth”.
Like Sue and Helen’s older sister Eve, they have a desire to be as god, knowing and determining for themselves – and everyone else while they’re at it – what constitutes good and evil. Eve fell for it. Looks like these two have fallen for it too. May God have mercy on us all.
21 March 2007 – Family Integrity #200 — 11th Press Release Ideas
21 March – Family Integrity #200 — 11th Press Release Ideas
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
By What Standard?
Bradford’s bill to repeal parental authority is simply insane. The only reason anyone pays it any attention at all is out of a sense of being polite and unwilling to say in public that this idea is completely detached from reality. First, it demonises “correction” of children. This is a core responsibility of parenting. We correct our children’s behaviour, attitudes, speech, grammar, dress and even tone of voice. Bradford is clearly subversive toward parenting in her intentions.
Second, it is clearly unwanted by the vast majority of the population. To continue to drive it through is not just unrepresentative and undemocratic, it is highly irresponsible and exposes its thoroughly ideological rather than any logical or beneficial motives. It will wreck any chance of forming the social peace and harmony the MPs all say they want to develop.
Third, it is hopelessly vague and unenforceable. “Reasonable force” is allowed to stop offensive or disruptive behaviour. But the Bill fails to specify by what standard “offensive” and “disruptive” are to be judged? If the 13-year-old daughter wants to strut around topless in the privacy of her family house, how can the parents claim it is offensive if neither the police nor the city councils of Palmerston North, Auckland and Christchurch would declare toplessness in the centre of town at midday to be offensive, even though it was performed before pre-schoolers and some school children to promote pornography?
Will the parents be trusted to make the call, according to the dictates of their own privately held standards, or will they be forced to conform to some national standard deemed to be acceptable on an ad hoc basis? If it is Bradford’s standards – which include approval of prostitution, dope smoking, lowered drinking age and lesbians getting a guy at the pub to impregnate one of them and casting him aside so the lesbians can have a live baby to toy with – it will only prove that this country is no longer a good place to bring up kids. Dump Bradford’s Bill.
16 March 2007 – Family Integrity #198 — A new video clip on YouTube
16 March 2007 – Family Integrity #198 — A new video clip on YouTube
Hi Guys
Links below are to former NZ Police Commissioner John Jamieson’s comments on Bradford’s Bill.
Spread the links far and wide. They need to go to the media.
If sending to media – or to anyone, tell them to use the YouTube keyword
‘section59’ and all the Bradford and section 59 clips will come up,
including the Timaru Lady’s story.
15 March 2007 – Family Integrity #197 — Smacking Bill – It’s Not Over Yet
15 March 2007 – Family Integrity #197 — Smacking Bill – It’s Not Over Yet
Dear Friends,
Bob says it all right here:
15 Mar 2007
Hi Craig,
It isn’t over yet !
The Anti-Smacking Bill can still be defeated – but we need your voice
Firstly, an apology . We apologise for having sent out so many emails recently over this issue. We have only received 2-3 complaints BUT this debate is simply indicative of a major issue in NZ – who should raise your children – parents or politicians? How much should the State control good family life?
Now back to the business!
We need your voice.
The Labour party has been ‘whipped’ (interesting terminology!) to vote the way the Prime Minister has told them. BUT there are a number of Labour MP’s who are not happy! And they are starting to speak up.
We need to help them!!!!!!
Please email, phone or write to the following family-friendly Labour MP’s
* ask them to demand a conscience vote in the Labour party
* ask them to vote to protect good parents doing a great job
* ask them to support Chester Borrow’s amendment defining reasonable force but not criminalising parents who use appropriate correction and discipline
Although the petition does not need to be completed for 12 months, we want to send a loud clear message to MP’s as soon as possible that they should be tackling the real causes of child abuse.
Thanks for your efforts – the family is worth defending!
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
Bradford’s misguided Bill to repeal Section 59 is incredibly short sighted in a number of ways. One is that she failed to notice Section 60 of the Crimes Act, right next door to Section 59. Section 60 justifies the use of “reasonable force” toward children, elderly and anyone else at the captain’s or pilot’s command by even passengers and crew on a ship or aircraft “for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline”.
Will that force be considered justified if used by parents in the home, in the car or in the shopping trolley? Isn’t “maintaining good order and discipline” also “incidental to good care and parenting” (which Bradford says is to be legal), or will it be defined as correction (which Bradford will insist makes it a crime)?
It is not at all clear what Bradford means by “correction”. Is it not reasonable that parents should have as much authority in their homes and vehicles and shopping trolleys as captains and pilots have on their craft? Or will this Bill land us in the situation where strangers in the form of passengers and crew can use reasonable force on my children to maintain good order and discipline on the ferry ship in the calms of Wellington harbour, but my wife and I are not allowed to use it on our own children in our own van to maintain good order and discipline while driving through the chaos of Wellington highways.
This ridiculous Bill is focused on criminalizing the benign corrective force used by nearly every good and caring parent in the country…..while doing nothing whatsoever to weed out the dysfunctional child abusing households. Dump the Bill.
13 March 2007 – Family Integrity #193 — Anti-Smacking Bill: Who should the politicians listen to?
13 March 2007 – Family Integrity #193 — Anti-Smacking Bill: Who should the politicians listen to?
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
The “Home Invasion” Bill of Sue Bradford’s to rewrite Section 59 is so thoroughly subversive of traditional, common-sense parenting, it will be impossible to enforce. Smacking is not defined. Bradford constantly equates it with hitting and beating, but this Bill neither affirms nor denies her sentiments on that. Historically smacking has been lumped into the category of “reasonable force” in Section 59, and this has been Bradford’s argument: that even severe hitting and beating are constantly hiding behind the phrase “reasonable force”. But does Bradford’s rewrite of Section 59 eliminate the phrase? No! Her nutty Bill actually says, “reasonable force” is justified when “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.” If Bradford’s rhetoric has any credibility at all, then also “severe hitting and beating” are justified when done “incidental to good care and parenting”.
Bradford’s Bill also fails to define what actually constitutes “the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.” Most folks would agree that it covers things like correction. But “correction” is the one thing Bradford has been careful to specifically forbid in this bill. “Correction”, however, is not defined either, so it will become a lawyers’ feeding frenzy to get as many of these cases to court to hammer out definitions, damaging another child and another family with every case.
This Bill’s purpose is to criminalise parents for correcting their children, a core duty of parenting. It has absolutely nothing to offer abused children in dysfunctional families. Dump the Bill.
12 March 2007 – Family Integrity #191 — Turia’s support for Bradford bill waivers 12 March 2007 – Family Integrity #191 — Turia’s support for Bradford bill waivers
By IRENE CHAPPLE – Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 11 March 2007
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is “wavering” on supporting the anti-smacking bill after spending the week talking to people in her electorate, Te Tai Hauauru.
Turia, who has previously given strong speeches in favour of the bill, said she is concerned Maori and Pacific families would be “targeted and criminalised” if it is passed.
Sponsored by Green MP Sue Bradford, the bill would repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which provides a defence of reasonable force for a parent who hits a child. An amendment proposed by National MP Chester Borrows’ would outlaw anything that caused more than “transitory and trifling” injury.
The amendment goes to a vote on Wednesday and the bill – a conscience vote – will face its final vote later this month.
Bradford believes she has 63 votes to defeat Borrows’ amendment – including the Maori Party’s four MPs. She could also pick up National Party support to push the bill through its final reading if the amendment fails.
However, lobbying against the bill is ferocious and equivocal support from MPs such as Turia has left advocates nervous that numbers could move against them.
Turia told the Star-Times she was concerned Pacific Island and Maori families could be targeted if the bill succeeds. She said she would “probably not” vote for the amendment. However, she was “wavering at the moment whether (the repeal of s59) is the right way to go”.
She was concerned it would be “put in place without education and Maori and Pacific Island families are highly likely to be targeted and criminalised … we need an assurance from government that police will not be going out and arresting people”.
Turia said the other Maori MPs would be listening to their constituents and would make their own decisions. Borrows will also speak at the Maori Party’s caucus on Tuesday in a final pitch to get their votes.
His pitch comes amid lobbying from organisations including Family First, which has called on Pacific Island groups, churches, and communities to campaign against the bill.
Borrows’ said his amendment would ensure normal parents are not criminalised, while supporters of Bradford’s bill say it must be passed to combat New Zealand’s appalling record of child abuse.
““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Therefore, friends, target and lobby with daily emails the Maori Party MPs. I thoroughly agree with the concerns raised: the Maori and PI communities are going to be hammered with this legislation and will not only be afraid to use any force, but will be afraid to correct their children’s behaviour, which in fact is the real target Bradford has been aiming at: to stop parents correcting their children’s behaviour.
The real problem will not be the Police so much, though they will be called upon to conduct plenty of investigations of families, which will be traumatic enough. The deadly problem will be involvement by CYFS….they get called in by neighbours, vindictive ex-spouses, enemies, Police and all sorts….and they tend to take the children FIRST and ask questions later…..which is permanently tramatizing for the children, not to mention the agony of not knowing where their children are for the parents.
This proposed legislation is diabolical. It must be opposed.
Just posted two new videos on Youtube – the infamous story of ‘the Timaru
Lady’ – a cautionary tale.
Previously posted 5 videos getting a good number of hits after just a week.
Pass the links on to all and sundry.
Bradford wants to ban parents from using reasonable force, and yet wants to
force all parents through unreasonable force to accept her ideology. If she
gets her way she will destroy countless numbers of NZ families.
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz.
I converted to Christianity at age 23, some 33 years ago, from a life of hedonism. I understand the terms “debauchery” and “licentiousness” and how destructive they are.
But this Government has tried to remove the social stigma attached to the irresponsible lifestyles of debauchery and licentiousness by enhancing the legal status of homosexuals and de factoes, fully legalising prostitution, allowing younger people freer access to alcohol, refusing to replace the unrepresentative and thoroughly desensitised film censors, pushing condom use in schools, allowing party drug use to grow, fostering an abortion-on-demand environment and ensuring contraceptive and abortion supply are the only medical areas where children don’t need parental knowledge or consent. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,” says Isaiah 5:20.
Being personally convinced of the Bible’s definitions of what constitutes good and evil, like thousands of other New Zealand parents, I am unafraid to shoulder my responsibilities toward my children and toward society by using reasonable force, including smacking, to correct my children’s expressions of evil, anti-social behaviour. Woe to me if I don’t. This is a social good the Government is trying to claim is an evil by repealing Section 59.
Why is this Government being so irrational, anti-family and anti-Christian, that it will gladly commit untold damage to good families via Police investigations and untold abuse and trauma to children via CYFS intervention?
9 March 2007 – Family Integrity #188 — NZ National Anthem
9 March 2007 – Family Integrity #188 — NZ National Anthem
Greetings
We are having such a blessed time singing the New Zealand National Anthem after every meal this month. We enjoy Family Worship after every meal. During that time we read the Bible, sing a few Psalms or Hymns, Pray, review Scripture, sometimes read a doctrinal book. Each month we take a Psalm or Hymn and sing it each time during Family Worship so that we should have it thoroughly memorised by the end of the month. Last month it was Psalm 51, a marvellous Psalm of repentence, and this month Genevieve was creative and found us the 5 verses of the National Anthem. As we sing this we are in prayer for the Nation of New Zealand. This is a great month to be singing it three times a day with Section 59 coming before Parliament again. We wanted to share this with others and thought that more people might like to sing this during this month as well. The words are below.
God of nations! at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet,
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our Free Land.
Guard Pacific’s triple star,
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand
Men of ev’ry creed and race
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our Free Land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.
Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our Free Land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.
Let our love for Thee increase,
May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our Free Land.
From dishonour and from shame
Guard our country’s spotless name
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.
May our mountains ever be
Freedom’s ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our Free Land.
Guide her in the nations’ van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy Glorious plan
God defend New Zealand
8 March 2007 – Family Integrity #187 — Seventh Press Release Ideas
8 March 2007 Family Integrity #187 — Seventh Press Release Ideas
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at http://www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
Bradford’s Bill Now Sanctions Smacking, Beatings and Abuse
Sue Bradford and those favouring repeal argue that the “reasonable force” provisions of Section 59 as it now stands are regularly used by parents and even juries to justify severe beatings and child abuse. It is, therefore, astounding that the rewrite of Section 59 does not remove those provisions at all but instead sets out four large areas wherein this “reasonable force” can be used: see Section (1)(a-d) below.
Current Section 59
59 Domestic Discipline
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.
Proposed Rewrite of Section 59
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).
Sections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are unnecessary as they are already covered in other sections of the Crimes Act (see Sections 39-60 of the Crimes Act 1961 at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes). It is funny that Sections (1)(c) and (1)(d) are spelled out, for the Current Section 59 (see above) does not actually allow “reasonable force” to be used for these purposes, but only for the purpose of “correction”. Obviously it has been assumed and understood by the justice system, police and society at large for years and years and years that “correction” has always included these things.
Clearly it has also been assumed and understood all these many years that “reasonable force” has included smacking as well as other things like time-out, grounding, removing privileges, etc.
So this rewrite of Section 59 is not even addressing the one issue Bradford always said was the problem: over-zealous use of “reasonable force”. Since this Bill allows “reasonable force” in so many circumstances, it not only allows everything that was going on previously under this label of “reasonable force”, including smacking, it also allows everything Bradford and co CLAIM was going on previously under this label, including severe beatings and abuse.
Bradford’s Bill as being proposed right now actually allows smacking as well as all the violence and abuse she claims has been going on behind Section 59! How bizarre is that!
The only thing that has changed is that the motivation or purpose of “correction” is being thoroughly demonised and must not even be hinted at if even the smallest degree of force is used in the correction process. (Curiously enough, correction is the ONLY motivation or purpose allowed under the current Section 59.) But this new Section (2) not only rules “correction” out of bounds, it also requires that, in this area of law alone, we are to cut ourselves off from our 800 year heritage of accumulated legal wisdom and practise known as common law.
Something even more disturbing is Section (3). The effect of this appears to be that, should there ever arise a situation where it is not clear if the parents’ actions were preventative or corrective (swatting a permanent marker from the hand drawing graffiti on the neighbour’s fence accompanied by the words, “Don’t do that!” instead of “Stop doing that!”), the corrective interpretation must prevail….meaning that when there is doubt, the parents must be found guilty of correcting their children, a case of criminal assault worth as much as two years in jail!
When will this insanity stop? When will the MPs do as 80% of us have made abundantly clear and dump this outrageously stupid Bill?
Family Integrity #186 — Some encouragement
Family Integrity #186 — Some encouragement
6 March 2007
Greetings all,
There are three parts to this email:
Part A : some encouragement
Part B : a peek into our possible future if this nutty bill goes through
Part C : some polls to vote in
And as always, please feel free to circulate these emails far and wide.
PART A
I received this from a reader of these newsletters:
“I felt like giving up last week (and no doubt you have felt like that too) but God was good and gave me the message to keep going. I went to a combined church thing last week and “happened” to sit next to Owen Jennings, ex MP. He encouraged me empathically to keep writing, that it does make a difference! It “raises the bar” every time we write. It makes it more difficult for MP’s to bulldoze things through.”
So hang in there friends!
PART B
An article in the UK says in part:
Children lack discipline and turn to crime because their parents are too scared to smack them, says one of Britain’s most senior black policemen.
Parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge, according to Supt Leroy Logan of the Metropolitan Police Force.
He says that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption.
He told the committee that “lack of respect and discipline in the home” was caused by “the parent feeling a sense of helplessness or a fear of prosecution in the moderate correction of their child”.
Please vote in these two polls under 1 and 2 and see the results of the two previous polls under 3 and 4 .
You need to go to the websites to vote:
1.
http://www.tv3.co.nz
1. Do you support the proposed ‘anti-smacking’ bill?
Yes, I support the bill in its current form
I would support it if ammendments were made
No, I do not support the bill
Not sure
How about this as a result so far – this is yesterday’s news:
1. Do you support the proposed ‘anti-smacking’ bill?
Yes, I support the bill in its current form 0%
I would support it if ammendments were made 0%
No, I do not support the bill 100%
Not sure 0%
3. http://tvnz.co.nz Will a smacking ban stop you from smacking your children?
10% Yes
87% No
3% Not sure
4. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
This one can be found in the archives Should parents have the right to smack their children for discipline?
Yes 90%
No 10%
Total Votes: 3880
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
Family Integrity #185 — Sixth Press Release Ideas
Family Integrity #185 — Sixth Press Release Ideas
Dear Friends,
I know it is wearisome to be getting daily emails and sometimes more than one a day. Please bear with it: this is only for a season…..it may be all over one way or another on 28 March.
But consider the issues: if the state succeeds in pushing this home invasion Bill of Bradford”s onto us, we will be affected, our children and grandchildren and who knows how many generations will have to suffer under this unjustifiable intervention by ideological radicals.
It has fallen to us to be the watchmen, the protectors and defenders of our individual family integrity….so take up the call to battle and do what you can for a wee while yet: our descendants will be forever grateful.
Please use any of these ideas in your own letters to MPs and Editors of newspapers,
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
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
The Bill Really Is Insane
At last an MP has come out and said what the vast majority of New Zealand’s population has been saying for over a year: that Bradford’s home invasion Bill is insane. (See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00071.htm All thanks and congratulations must go to United Future MP Gordon Copeland. He has pointed out that Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s report of the Law Commission, upon which the Justice and Electoral Committee leaned to compose the current form of Bradford’s anti-parent Bill before Parliament, states that the Bill disallows parents from using any force at all for either corrective or disciplinary purposes. This bans a great deal more than just smacking: enforcing a time out to “think over what you’ve done”, forcing children to apologise for an insult or repay stolen money or simply to do as they were asked will all become crimes of criminal assault worth as much as two years in jail because they seek to correct children’s bad behaviour into good and proper behaviour. How could any sane adult seriously contemplate enacting such absurd, destructive legislation?
And the report also points out that Section 3 of the Bill disallows correction to even be part of an action’s mixed motives. That is, the Bill endeavours to force parents to be pure even in thought. Bradford would legislate that parents’ very hearts and minds must not be soiled with what she would see as the illegal corruption of corrective or disciplinary motives.
As Mr Copeland say, this is just plain nuts, absurd, insane.
Bradford gave us plenty of clues right from the start that her Bill was crazy: the Bill’s original title was a nonsense; she openly stated she wanted to see parents reduced to the same level as everyone else so far as the use of force with their own children is concerned. This would completely erase the fact that children, being both dependent and immature in mental and physical development, need some responsible adults, parents being the obvious ones, to take charge of their lives and force them along the path of character and behaviour development children do not travel if left to themselves. And her insistence that there be no appeal to our 800 years of common law wisdom and precedent clearly shows a lemming-like desire to jump off the edge into the great unknown of social experimentation.
May the rest of Parliament come to its senses and vote Bradford’s subversive Bill into oblivion where it belongs.
Family Integrity #184 — Bradford Bill will result in Children Reporting Parents
Family Integrity #184 — Bradford Bill will result in Children Reporting Parents
5 March 2007
Here’s a great press release from Family First.
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
MEDIA RELEASE
5 MARCH 2007
Bradford ‘Anti-smacking’ Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents
Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they don’t like parental discipline and correction.
Prominent QC Peter McKenzie, in his opinion released last week, highlights this when he says “complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges.”
“And this is consistent with international experience,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Supt Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London and Britain’s most senior black policeman said at the weekend(1) that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge. He said that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption. He made these comments during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men.
In Sweden (where smacking was banned in 1979), the Nordic Committee for Human Rights says(2) “Children have been informed of their rights and so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents in the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police…When the children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but they are held to their stories – without any consideration of the damages that the children themselves incur.”
“The resentment that the parents feel towards their children whose unacceptable behaviour was the direct cause of the charges against the parents, has resulted in the loss of normal, loving parental guidance for these children. The guilt felt by the children has also seriously damaged the parent/child relationship.” (cases in detail below)
Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass Sue Bradford’s bill, it will only increase the likelihood of disgruntled children making complaints against their parents because of resentment against correction, ‘time out’, or denial of privileges.
“This will pit children against their parents, and will place parents under extreme pressure,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This would be a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. It is already happening in NZ, with the recent example of a teenager effectively ‘divorcing’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules.”
In an attempt to protect children from the small minority of parents who are obviously unsuitable to hold the responsibilities of parenting, we are steam-rolling good parents who deserve the backing of the state – not undermining and potentially criminalising.
Mr McCoskrie says that a child’s rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture, protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been shifted from simply protecting vulnerable children to granting them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.
ENDS
(1) A smack can keep children from crime says police leader – Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 07
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
SWEDISH CASES (in detail)
Teacher case – (B 2637/92 Gothenburg District Court)
In September 1992 a teacher was convicted and fined for having maltreated his 12 year-old son. The parents – both intellectuals – had made certain rules as regards the tidying of the children’s rooms and watching the TV. The children were not allowed to watch TV all evening, and their TV-time was restricted to 2 hours per evening including playing computer games.
On April 9, the father told his son to turn off the tv and empty the garbage. The boy refused to comply, so his father turned off the tv, removed the boy bodily from the sofa, put the garbage bag in his hand and shoved him towards the door. The boy cried and the following day he went to the police and reported being beaten and kicked – that he had been maltreated by his father.
The boy informed his father that he had reported him to the police, and the father explained what the consequences could be. The boy rushed off to the police station to withdraw his statement but instead, that resulted in the father also being charged for “interfering in due process”.
The Pre-school teacher case – (B 5050/92 Gothenburg District Court)
A young Finnish pre-school teacher was accused of maltreating her 12 year old daughter who always kept on stealing and running away from home. The mother and daughter have been living in Sweden for 6 years and the child was emotionally disturbed because of alleged sexual abuse from her father (the parents divorced before mother and daughter moved to Sweden).
Once when the girl had run away from home she was taken care of by the police and the social authorities in Falköping. The girl then said that she was afraid to return home because her mother would be angry with her for having run off once again, that her mother would perhaps smack her.
The policeman then advised the girl of her rights according to the law, and that her mother was not allowed to even lay a finger on her – only talk to her. She was also encouraged to go to the police and report her mother if ever she should lay hands on her.
A few weeks later, the girl ran off once again and when she finally returned home late that night she was very provocative. Her mother became angry and physically punished her. The girl went to the police the next morning and filed charges against her mother.
The mother was found guilty of maltreatment.
The Hälsingborg Case – (Order of summary punishment (Strafföreläggande) 1252-882-84)
Hälsingborgs District Attorney issued an order of summary punishment on May 23, 1984 against a Swedish father for physically punishing his 12 year old.
The boy’s friends used to call the family’s telephone so often that the parents decided to get a secret number. The boy was told not to give the number to his friends. On April 27, 1984, when a call came for the boy, his father accused him of having given the new telephone number to his friends.
When the boy denied doing this, his father accused him of lying and physically punished him. His mother saw what had happened and instructed the boy to report his father to the police. The family then sat down to dinner and an hour later the boy went to the police and reported his father.
The mother was interrogated by the police on May 14, 1984. The police asked her if she had been aware of the consequences of a report to the police. She replied: “I wasn’t, but I thought that the police would talk to Dad, and give him a warning so that he wouldn’t do it again. If we had known that it would go as far as this, we would never have reported the incident. It would have remained within the family.”
Family Integrity #183 — Fifth Press Release Ideas
Family Integrity #183 — Fifth Press Release Ideas
3 March 2007
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at: www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
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
Please Enlighten Us, Sue
Sue Bradford is doing as she promised: resorting to tooth and nail instead of logic and reasoned debate to defend her indefencible Bill to subvert parental duties toward their chidlren. She criticises Lawyers, QCs no less, for opinions she agrees are possible. She admits that lawyers will find this Bill a gold mine, but that somehow the trauma and crippling expense to families as they agonise through the process of being investigated, charged and then defended for taking a child to time out because the parents hoped to correct the chid is all going to be worth it.
Worth it to whom, Sue?
She admits that assault and child abuse are already illegal, but then says the “correction” of Section 59 must be redefined as abuse. When is she going to enlighten us: what is there about a parent correcting a child’s bad behaviour that she is so violently and vehemently against?
She also routinely refers to parents, acquitted by juries, as “severely beating their children”. Not a shred of evidence is offered to support this outrageous claim, which clearly condemns our entire justice system, except to point to cases in which she was not privy to the details, and criticises the findings of juries made up of 12 of her peers because they did not agree with her opinion. Let’s remember the juries’ findings are based on reviewing the facts in excruciating detail while Bradford’s opinions are formed from sensational newspaper reports embellished with her own peculiar ideology.
Oh, yes, she also theorises, again offering not a shred of evidence, that the Police routinely overlook real cases of child abuse that come to their notice because they know they’ll be dismissed under Section 59. Again, she clearly takes pleasure, as she has always done in her past, in castigating and denigrating the integrity and intelligence of New Zealand’s Police Force.
Family Integrity #182 — Good Questions that need answers
Family Integrity #182 — Good Questions that need answers
3 March 2007
Good Questions that need answers!
Feel free to use the press releases I’m sending any way you like. I already send them out to all the big and many small papers, but I don’t know all the little local ones. So simply forwarding it to your local weekly advertiser would be a good idea.
As letters to the Editors, please feel free to use the ideas in these press releases as your own, cut and paste as you like, modify, edit, add more ideas….don’t feel you need to quote the source. But do know that the more letters opposing this Bill that are received by the MPs and Letters to Editors, the more they are going to be influenced to vote against this terrible Bill.
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
—–Original Message—–
From: Ma
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:03 PM
To: Craig Smith
Subject: Re: Family Integrity #180 — Something to consider
Dear Craig,
Thanks for the initiative! Done! Also a question re those press releases. Are you looking for us to put direct copies of them into our local papers? I’m getting quite familiar with emailing MPs now, so I’m fine with cutting bits out of yours so they keep getting the same message from loads of us, it’s just the nespaper bit that I’m on shaky ground – procedure etc. Is it fine to just put one of yours in, with a note at the beginning to say something like ‘ Family Integrity’s Craig Smith recently said in a press release…’ ?If they’re happy to publish, then do as a series over a few issues?
Sorry, I know you’re very busy, but any tips appreciated.
Warm regards,
Ma
Family Integrity #181 — Critique of Bradford’s anti-section 59
Family Integrity #181 — Critique of Bradford’s anti-section 59
Bill now on YouTube
Greetings
Five video clips just posted on YouTube explaining and critiquing in a
straight up way, Bradford’s assault on New Zealand families.
36 minutes viewing in all.
Entitled ‘Criminalising Parents NZ Style’, they can be found in order at:
We need to convince the MPs to vote Bradford’s Bill down. Please consider the following suggested course of action. It would only take a moment or two.
New Zealand First, as a party, is being silly. All 7 NZFirst MPs are List Candidates. To survive in the next election they’ll need something to offer the voters.
If they opposed Bradford’s Bill as a block, rather than split as they are at present, and put themselves forward as the party solidly against this Bill, I reckon 80% of NZers would love them for doing so.
Their votes could easily make the difference between success and failure of this Bill.
At present here is where the NZ First MPs are at:
For the Bill:
Hon Brian Donnelly
Doug Woolerton
Barbara Stewart
Against the Bill:
Rt Hon Winston
Ron Mark
Pita Paraone
Peter Brown
Here are all their email addresses, ready for you to copy and paste:
The suggested action is to send the following email to each of the NZFirst MPs above (as per instructions below) and then get everyone else you can to send the same email to these same MPs. (Only if you agree with the sentiments expressed in this email, of course.) Please understand the tactics here: it is simply known as Politics.
So, forward this email in its entirety to all your friends.
Then, to send the email message below to the NZFirst MPs listed above, do the following:
1. copy and paste the email below into a fresh new email message form (that is, DON’T just hit the reply or forward buttons)
2. put your name at the bottom under “Regards”
3. copy and paste the seven email addresses above into the “To:” box at the top of the message form
4. hit the “send” button. Piece of cake.
Here’s the email:
Dear NZ First MPs,
Parliament needs decisive leaders, not tyrants. The New Zealand public is looking for such leaders, who will listen to them, rather than heedlessly walk over the top of them.
I am sure that if NZ First as a Party, and if the Rt Hon Winston Peters as the Leader were to now stand up and declare your united opposition to this grossly intrusive and subversive Bill of Sue Bradfords to repeal/rewrite Section 59, a good 80% or
more of NZ voters would line up right behind you and support your sensible leadership and your party of sanity.
However, if any one of you NZ First MPs votes in favour of Bradford’s Bill to repeal/rewrite Section 59, I promise you there is no way I will vote for NZ First with either my electorate or my party vote at the next election. Sorry, but I feel strongly about this. It is far too serious an issue.
This is how NZ First can secure its future — or its demise — on the New Zealand political landscape.
Regards,
Family Integrity #179 — Fourth Press Release Ideas
And do get hold of Larry Baldock’s and Sheryl Savill’s petition: it’s easy to get signatures. Decide to collect 20 at least, then post them in straight away. See the home page at www.familyintegrity.org.nz for instructions.
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
When I rang the Minister of Justice Mark Burton to ask about the “plank of wood” he mentioned in his speech debating Bradford’s Bill to subvert all parental authority by criminalizing the use of any force to correct their own children, I was put on to his PA Andrian Fryer. Burton had said Section 59 had been used to justify beatings with such implements. So could he give me any details about the case where the “plank of wood” was used? Well, no he couldn’t. It may have been a reference to the case in Hawkes Bay where a piece of kindling, the size of a standard wooden spoon was used. But Mr Fryer really couldn’t say. I asked if he was aware that in that case the bruising referred to was caused by a roller blade accident and that the acquittal was not, in fact, based on an appeal to Section 59? Mr Fryer couln’t say.
Did it concern Mr Fryer or the Minister that such careless use of language and disregard for the accuracy of the facts opened the Minister of Justice to accusations of deceit? Mr Fryer couldn’t say. It didn’t matter anyway, he insisted, for it didn’t change the Government’s stand that the use of an implement for correcting a child was unacceptable.
Mr Fryer made it clear that the civil Government in Parliament has taken a stand on this Bill and will drive it through. As so many others have pointed out, it doesn’t appear to matter one bit to this Government that the majority of the population object: this Government intends to tell parents that they must not correct their children with any use of force………which means they cannot correct them at all, for to correct means at the very least to force the parent’s will upon the child.
Governments have jurisdictions, areas wherein they wield legitimate authority. The Civil Government of Parliament is one government. Then we have local governments, workplace governments, church governments, the governments of individual families and finally the self-government of each mature person. Each of these governments has its own jurisdiction: there is a jurisdiction of the state, a jurisdiction of the church, a jurisdiction of the family, and so on. There is a bit of overlap at the edges, but it is the characteristic of a free society that each of these governments is free to wield its legitimate authority within its own jurisdiction without undue interventions from the other governments. Parliament, or what we usually call the Government with a capital “G”, is only one government among many.
The problem with Bradford’s Bill is that it is a naked grab by the central Government of the state of New Zealand to take over the jurisdiction of each individual family government. There is already a legitimate jurisdiction of the state to intervene into the government of the family, and that is when the family experiences gross dysfunction. Likewise, when the self-government of the individual breaks down and he or she becomes a lawbreaker, again the state Government has then a legitimate jurisdiction to intervene into the government of the individual with Police arrest.
Bradford’s Bill is a clumsy attempt to illegitimately extend the jurisdiction of the state into the jurisdiction of every healthy family and to take over the way each family governs its children. This is not the way of state governments in free and democratic countries. Such moves are antithetical to the whole concept of democracy.
Significantly, however, this is the way of totalitarian state governments, such as the communist regimes of Cuba or the old USSR and East Europe before their collapse in 1989. If we in New Zealand do not want to fall into that kind of political and social slavery, we must reject Bradford’s Bill and take the government of the family back away from the state.