09 May 2008

Just a quick reminder…

Please send in any petition forms you have so far (even half completed forms)

by MONDAY i.e. post Saturday / courier Monday after weekend collecting
CIR Petition
P.O.Box 9228
Tauranga

DOWNLOAD PETITION FORMS CLICK HERE

We want to hear your story

Have you been reported, investigated by CYF or the Police, threatened, or had difficulties with your role as a parent as a result of the anti-smacking law?

Email us admin@familyfirst.org.nz
(your letter will be treated with the upmost confidence)

READ what has happened to other families as a result of the law change

DON’T GET MAD – GET EVEN…

EVEN MORE SIGNATURES!

 

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

MEDIA RELEASE

5 May 2008

Increase in Abuse of Parents Expected Outcome of Anti-Smacking Law

Family First NZ says that the increasing level of parental abuse by their children is an unfortunate but expected outcome of the ideologically flawed and extremist anti-smacking law.

Recent examples include Nelson police reporting that young people are becoming increasingly violent or threatening towards their parents and that some parents no longer have the confidence to deal with the unacceptable behaviour. Local social agencies in the Bay of Plenty say sibling violence and kids being violent towards their parents are both issues ‘escalating’ in the area. And an increase in both verbal and physical abuse towards parents has been highlighted by youthworkers in the Kapiti Coast.

“This was a predicted outcome of the anti-smacking law and comes as no surprise to us,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The authority of parents has been undermined by this law change, and children are now telling mum or dad they cannot touch them – even when the physical action is reasonable and appropriate to deal with the unacceptable or defiant behaviour of a child. Parents know what works because parents know their kids best.”

Schools were sold the same ideological myth when they were told that by banning corporal punishment, violence in the community would decrease. In fact the exact opposite happened, with Ministry of Education figures showing that between 2000 and 2004, in primary schools alone, physical assaults on staff were up 40%, assaults on other students 33%, sexual misconduct up 21% and sexual harassment up an astonishing 83%. A New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) survey last year has found one in seven primary school teachers were hit by their pupils last year, and more than 50 per cent of teachers reported “aggressive verbal confrontations” with pupils.

Sweden, one of the first countries to ban smacking in 1979 suffered a similar fate with assaults by kids increasing 672% in the 13 years following the ban. A recent UN report on European Crime and Safety found that Sweden had one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU.

“If the government wants parents to be responsible parents, they must firstly respect their authority,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The anti-smacking law has undermined the role of parents, has failed to understand the special relationship and functioning of families, and has communicated to some children that they are now in the ‘driving seat’ and parents should be put in their place.”

“Parents deserve far better support.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Parents call police over violent kids Nelson Mail 5 May 07

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4511256a6007.html

Parents Threatened by violent children Bay of Plenty Times 28 Nov 07

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3756724&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection

Rising youth crime in Kapiti Coast TVNZ / Newstalk ZB 20 Mar 08

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1649925

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4511256a6007.htmlParents call police over violent kids

By KIRAN CHUG – Nelson | Monday, 05 May 2008

Nelson young people are becoming increasingly violent towards their parents, say police concerned that the passing of the anti-smacking bill could be contributing to a new trend in domestic violence.

Police say they are receiving at least one or two calls a week from parents who say they are being physically abused or threatened by their children.

Senior Sergeant Ross Lienert, the Tasman police district youth services and family violence co-ordinator, said some parents were asking police to step in to help them, because they were worried about disciplining violent children.

There had been a suggestion that the removal of section 59 from the Crimes Act which took away the excuse of reasonable force in disciplining children had “depowered parents, so they’re calling on us to intervene”.

He said the trend of an increasing number of youths assaulting parents had emerged since the launch of the “It’s Not Okay” campaign to raise awareness about domestic violence, and the almost simultaneous passing of the anti-smacking bill in May last year.

It was impossible to determine which had made the greater difference, but Mr Lienert said it was positive that more people were contacting police about family violence.

Police were trying to build a clearer picture of what was driving the increase in youth assaults on parents. They were going through their domestic violence call-out records to gauge the extent of the problem.

Police would then have a more detailed breakdown of who the offenders were in family violence callouts, including how many children reported being assaulted by their parents.

More education was needed about the anti-smacking bill but Mr Lienert said parents could still use methods such as “time out” to discipline their children. However, many were unsure of what they could and couldn’t do.

He also said it was possible that young people were being more violent towards their parents because they thought the anti-smacking bill protected them.

“Some parents have said, `We can’t touch them, so we’re calling on you to deal with it’.”

Police were witnessing some “very serious” assaults by young people on their parents, but Mr Lienert said these made up a small portion of the violence.

However, he said all forms of violence, including verbal threats, were a concern because they could lead to more serious attacks.

Upper Moutere anthropologist Donna Swift carried out a study of 500 year 10 students in Nelson in 2005, and asked an even split of boys and girls 40 questions.

She said the results showed that girls were more likely to be physically violent towards family members than boys, and that while 22 percent of girls had hit adults in their family, only 14 percent of boys had done the same.

Nelson Tasman Te Rito family violence coordinator Gayle Helm said addressing the problem of young people being violent towards their parents was “definitely on the agenda”.

“It’s a very complex issue and it’s difficult to pin down why it’s happening.”

The Te Rito network was planning to hold a “youth forum” for community organisations and young people to explore the reasons behind youth violence and how it could be prevented.

Mr Lienert said police had identified a need for a community-based collaborative programme aimed specifically at targeting the rising numbers of violent young female offenders in Nelson.

He said Ms Swift had developed a preventive programme, Turning Point, after carrying out a pilot project in Nelson in 2005.

Police believed it was the only programme of its kind in New Zealand, and was desperately needed in Nelson, he said. Ms Swift said it would require initial funding of $100,000.

Posted at 9:41am on 30 Apr 2008

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200804300940/1bbd376b

Listen to Morning Report interview with Larry Baldock:
Listen to Morning Report interview with Larry Baldock

02 May 2008

 

Don’t get mad

 

– get even…

 

 

Here’s some interesting quotes….

Clark: “..they don’t want to see, ah, you know, stressed and harassed parents, ah, you know, called in by the police because they, they smacked a child, so I think there’s a debate to go on..”
Interviewer: “..right .. so, you don’t want to see smacking banned…”
Clark: “Absolutely not! I think you’re trying to defy human nature.”
Helen Clark – Radio Rhema – Election Campaign 2005

“I personally think that political parties that get so removed from the voters do suffer, and I think Helen Clark is effectively whipping and forcing her caucus to do something which frankly, in my view, is largely a conscience vote which is the way National is treating it with their MP’s”
John Key – Prime TV – before the law was passed

“The epidemic of child abuse and child violence in this country continues – sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem.”
Sue Bradford – National Radio – 21 Dec 07

United Future leader Peter Dunne, who voted in favour of the bill, is not surprised the petition has fallen short as he says it was something launched in a fit of pique. He says it is time for people to get over the issue . Mr Dunne says the petition organisers should have been more thorough with the gathering and collating of signatures.
Newstalk ZB this week!

We say…

Don’t get mad

– get even…

 

 

 

even more

 

signatures!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to avoid ANY doubt and to get around ANY formula used to discount invalid votes, we need to collect 20,000 – 30,000 signatures on BOTH petitions preferably within 2 weeks. 1. Print off the petition form containing the 2 petitions http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz/documents/CirPetition.pdf

2. Get as many signatures as you can on both petitions over the next 2 weeks

IMPORTANT
* ensure the person hasn’t already signed
* ensure they write clearly and complete all parts of the form
* ensure they are registered on the electoral roll to vote

* ensure you get people to fill in the “date of birth” column

3. Send them in to the address at the bottom of the petition form as soon as possible – preferably by Monday May 12. (Even forms only half filled should still be sent in as soon as)

4. PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL ON AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO COLLECT SIGNATURES.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

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

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/washingtontimes/200804280.aspThe Washington Times	April 28, 2008

Washington Times Op-ed—California May Ban Spanking

by J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

It’s often said that California is a trendsetter. Ideas that begin in California have a habit of making their way across the country.

Currently, many families have been alarmed at the recent California Court of Appeal ruling that prohibits homeschooling unless the parent is a certified teacher.

In just 10 days, more than 250,000 people signed the Home School Legal Defense Association petition opposing this decision. Not all these families were homeschoolers. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says the ruling was an “all-out assault on the family.”

The good news is that the Court of Appeal has granted a request for a rehearing of its decision on homeschooling, which by law, automatically vacates the decision, meaning it’s no longer binding.

The court has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs, including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three California teachers unions.

Although there is no guarantee the outcome will be different after the rehearing, The homeschool community welcomes the opportunity to file an amicus brief advocating that the court retain the current method of homeschooling in California through the private school exemption.

Just when things seemed to be settling down in California, on April 3, Assembly Bill 2943 was introduced by assembly member Sally Lieber. This bill would have the practical effect of making a noninjurious spanking with an object such as a ruler, folded newspaper or small paddle illegal in California. The bill is identical to Assembly Bill 755, which failed to pass the assembly last year.

This bill amends Penal Code section 273(a), which makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm or injury to any minor child. If the bill passes, spanking with an object such as a stick, rod or switch would be lumped in with throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.

Striking a child with a fist. Striking a child under 3 years of age on the face or head. Vigorously shaking of a child under 3 years of age. Interfering with a child’s breathing. Brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child. These are all factors that a jury could use to conclude that a defendant in a criminal case has inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.

What the bill would do is to equate discipline administered via an implement with the above conduct, which obviously is abusive behavior toward a child.

This likely will have several negative unjustifiable consequences in California. Prosecutors could end up filing criminal charges against parents for simply spanking their children with an object even though reasonable, age-appropriate corporal discipline is a protected right of parents in every state.

Secondly, by the mere fact that jurors in criminal cases would be instructed that they could consider spanking with an implement to be criminal conduct would imply that the legislature believes that this type of conduct is abusive conduct. Finally, if this law passes, it will have a chilling effect on parents who reasonably exercise discipline through the use of spanking with an implement.

Although this is not a homeschool issue, it is a parental rights issue. One of the foundations for the right to homeschool is based upon the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

The erosion of parental rights is a dangerous trend. If California continues to push to have homeschooling parents be certified teachers and limit heretofore well-established disciplinary tools of parents, it will be asserting the view that the state knows what’s best for children, thereby limiting the authority of parents to raise their children in a responsible way.

Defending parental rights is apparently going to be an uphill battle in California. Now is the time to take a look at amending the U.S. Constitution to protect parental rights.

Michael Smith is the president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He may be contacted at (540)338-5600; or send email to media@hslda.org.

MEDIA RELEASE

29 April 2008

Count on Anti-Smacking Petition Labelled ‘Incredibly Dodgy’

HUNDREDS OF PETITION FORMS DOWNLOADED TODAY
Family First NZ is labeling the counting of the signatures on the anti-smacking petition as ‘incredibly dodgy’.

“Despite a very thorough audit of a sample of signatures, the government statistician has applied a further margin of error against the number of signatures,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But margins of error go both ways, plus and minus, and it completely ignores the purpose and function of the previous thorough audit process.”

 “This would suggest that there is an agenda to try and ‘kill’ the petition.”

Family First is still completely confident of success with the petition despite this setback and says the websites hosting the petition forms have been inundated with downloads of the petition form today.

“We have had almost 300 downloads just today on just the Family First website, and many emails requesting the forms,” says Mr McCoskrie. “That is similar with other organisations hosting the forms.”

“Despite the hopes and dreams of Labour and the Greens, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. Parents who opposed this law will get to be heard – no matter how hard they make it.”

FACT SHEET
How many signatures were submitted?
324,216
How many were needed to force the referendum?
Only 285.027
How many were found invalid after the thorough audit?
The government statistician ( our emphasis added ) took a sample of almost 30,000 and found an ‘invalid’ rate of about 13% (pretty good considering Norm Wither’s law and order petition had 20% invalid rate).
So that means 324,216 less 13% invalid = 282,067 – a shortfall of about 3,000?
Yes – that’s what you would expect
But they’re saying that the shortfall is 18,027; 15,000 greater than the sample would indicate
That’s what the government statistician ( our emphasis added) is saying
So how did he get the extra invalid signatures numbering 15,000?
That’s the million dollar question. They have literally plucked a figure out of the air (arguing ‘margin of error’ and despite their already thorough audit), said it’s their ‘best estimate’ – and under the Act, they don’t have to be accountable for how they came to that figure.

Do the organisers have extra time to collect the 15,000 shortfall
YES! 2 more months.
Have any more signatures been collected since the previous cut-off date?
Yes! Almost 20,000 (including 6,500 at the V8 races last weekend – gotta love those petrol-heads!)
So you have enough to force the Referendum?
You would think so, but based on the confusing and suspicious calculations made by the government statistician ( our emphasis added ) we will collect a buffer of 20,000 more signatures to be totally sure

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director 

Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4501944a10.html

Smacking petition falls short

By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 29 April 2008Organisers of a petition to force a smacking referendum have been dealt a major blow after failing to gather enough signatures.

They now have two more months to collect enough signatures.

The petition needed 280,275 signatures to force a referendum but fell short after a number were excluded because they were either illegible, the signatory’s date of birth could not be confirmed, or involved people who signed multiple times.

In a statement, the Office of the Clerk said an audit of signatures found that no more than 269,500 were eligible. That is a shortfall of about 15,500 signatures.

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskie appeared confident that any shortfall would easily be made up in the two months available.

He said politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of parents.

“The passing of the anti-smacking law by most of our politicians last year was an act of breathtaking arrogance which ignored the wishes of the very people who elected them to represent them in the making of our laws.”

The petition by Sheryl Savill asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

If the organisers succeed in collecting the signatures of 10 per cent of eligible electors they will be able to force a referendum at the next election, though its results will be non-binding.

“““““““““““““““““““““

If you haven’t signed the petition yet and would like to, please go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz and print it then sign it and send it to the address on the website.