Category: News Media/Press Releases

  • Politicians Should Respond Now, Not Later, to Smacking Referendum

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00423.htm 

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 April 2008

    Politicians Should Respond Now, Not Later, to Smacking Referendum

    Family First NZ says that the success of the petition demanding a public referendum on the highly unpopular and extremist anti-smacking law shows that politicians should respond now, not after the election, to the wishes of NZ parents.

    “The 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,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “In passing the law, they were guilty of abusing child abuse laws.”

    Today will confirm that the numbers are sufficient for a Referendum to be forced at the upcoming general election, and if there is any shortfall, it will be minimal and the organizers have two months to collect the shortfall.

    “10% of NZ voters have taken time to demand a response to their objection to this bad lawmaking, and Family First eagerly awaits the first brave and democratic response from the political parties to correct this ideologically flawed law.”

    When United Future’s Peter Dunne presented a 42,000 signature petition last year calling on daylight saving to be extended by 3 weeks, he said “There is no doubt that more daylight saving is what New Zealanders want, and the Internal Affairs Minister is going to be extremely hard-pressed to do anything other than heed our call.”

    “The government almost tripped over itself in its rush to amend the law.”

    “With almost eight times more signatures on this petition, it is now time to amend the anti-smacking law, to leave good parents alone, and to target the real causes of child abuse and actual child abusers.”

    ENDS


    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • Anti-Smacking Law Tragic Failure as Child Abuse Death Rate Continues

    http://menz.org.nz/

    Family First NZ says that the announcement of the death of three-year-old Auckland toddler Dylan Rimoni being treated as a homicide means that the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the flawed anti-smacking law.

    “While good families are being investigated and thrown under suspicion because of the extremist anti-smacking law pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford, child abuse has continued at the same rate and the same old underlying issues of drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown and dysfunction continue to be ignored,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Before Bradford’s anti-smacking law was passed, there were an average of 7 child abuse deaths per year since 2000. Since the law change less than a year ago, there has already been another seven.”
    They include:

    • Remuera 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
    • a 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown June 2007
    • Tokoroa 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
    • Rotorua 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
    • Manurewa ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007
    • Otahuhu two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007

    They don’t include Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua shot dead in an alleged gang-related drive-by shooting in the month the bill was passed (May 2007)

    “Opponents to Bradford’s anti-smacking law, which included many Plunket, CYF and Barnardos frontline social workers, have been proved right. The law has done nothing to protect at-risk children or to strengthen at-risk families. It has simply made victims of good parents raising good kids.”

    “That’s why the petition demanding a referendum which only required 285,000 signatures was presented last month with over 330,000 signatures. NZ’ers are sick of our leaders “fluffing” around the real issues of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

  • Duckworth-Lewis type mathematical equations may determine referendum outcome at this stage.

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader and anti-smacking petition organiser Larry Baldock confirmed today that the preliminary results from Sheryl Savill’s petition to force a referendum on the question, ‘should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?’ was going to be very close to being just under or over the required threshold.

    A total of 324,316 signatures were handed in on Feb 29th. To succeed in forcing a referendum it is required to have the certified signatures of 10% of those enrolled on the electoral role which on that day was 285,027. That would therefore require a success rate of 87.88% from the audit process undertaken by the Chief Registrar of Electors. A random sample of 29,501 signatures was taken and checked individually against the electoral role with 25,754 qualifying as certified correct.

    Mr Baldock said “If I did my own simple maths on those figures we would then estimate that we had a success rate of 87.29%

    “However I am informed by the Clerk that the Government Statistician needs 90 hours to complete a very complicated mathematical formula to officially ascertain the number of correct signatures. I have no idea why this must take so long and whether there will be any great variation from my simple maths. It begins to look like the Duckworth-Lewis system of determining the results in rain shortened One Day Cricket matches, and we all know how they turn out, usually in the other teams favour! said Mr Baldock.

    The final result must be given to the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than next Tuesday April 29th by the Clerk of the House.

  • Kidnapped by government-USA

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62153



    Kidnapped by government


    Posted: April 21, 2008
    © 2008 Given that Mormon readers will probably recall my past references to a former candidate for the White House as Capt. Underoos, it’s not exactly a secret that I harbor little respect for Joseph Smith’s little cult. While all of the Latter Day Saints I’ve ever met have been fine, upstanding individuals, I nevertheless tend to view “The Book of Mormon” as being, for all intents and purposes, the literary and religious equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard’s “Battlefield Earth.”But despite my admitted lack of sympathy for Mormonism, not since the Waco massacre have I been so completely appalled by an American government action. The recent kidnapping of 416 children from their Fundamentalist LDS parents by Texas Child Protective Service agents is a unconscionable abnegation of not only the United States and Texas constitutions, but a rejection of the very meaning of what it is to be an American. For as P.J. O’Rourke rightly declares: “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please.”

    Contrary to what a disturbing percentage of the voting population appears to believe, “protecting the children” is not a legitimate function of government. The concept appears nowhere in any constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic. The state does not own the children whose families happen to reside within its boundaries and it does not possess the right to dictate what is and what is not a proper way for a family to raise its children.

    Consider this absurd justification for the mass kidnappings offered by Angie Voss, the CPS kidnapper in chief, offered as an explanation for the mysterious preference of the abused women to remain with their supposed abusers instead of availing themselves of government shelters: “This population of women has a difficult time making decisions on their own.” If a distaste for decision-making is legitimate grounds for removing children from their mothers, then there won’t be a woman in America left with a child to call her own! For what man has not had a conversation that went like this:

    “Where do you want to eat?”

    “I don’t care. … You decide.”

    “OK, let’s go to that new Chinese place.”

    “No, I don’t want Chinese!”

    “Well, what do you want, then?”

    “I don’t know, whatever you want.”

    Sound the sirens, send in Ms. Voss and her Sturmtruppen, and seize those at-risk kids!

    The disingenuous bigotry of CPS’ action is perhaps best revealed by comparing the pregnancy rates of the supposedly abused teenage girls at the FLDS compound with the rest of the teenage Texan population. Voss stated that five of the 416 children were pregnant or had given birth; assuming that half of the 416 are female, that is a pregnancy rate of 24 per 1,000. The Texas pregnancy rate among women 15 to 19 is 101 per 1,000. It’s also worth noting that the “numerous” pregnant 13-year-olds hypothesized by one government worker mysteriously transformed into five “under 18s” when Voss testified.

    If the family lives of hundreds of American citizens living peacefully can be brutally invaded and destroyed on the basis of a single anonymous phone call that, as WND has reported, increasingly looks to have been a fraud, then every American family is at risk.

    How you raise your children is between you and God alone. It is not a matter for the state or anyone else; it never has been. As this mass kidnapping of FLDS children and incredible violation of due process will almost surely demonstrate over time, government is a ruthless and power-maddened institution that is the very last one capable of serving the interests of the children. No conservative and no religious individual should support this outrageous action, even if adult members of the FLDS community are found to have violated Texas law as well as Texas social norms, because to accept this terrible precedent is to guarantee that future violations of family rights will be committed.

    And as history has shown, the next time it may not be some weird and heretical Mormons in the government’s gun sights, but Jews, homeschoolers or evangelical Christians.

    (more…)

  • Sunday Newspapers – advertising

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/They_had_no_right.html

    This full page advertisement appears in all national Sunday newspapers today.

    CLICK HERE for a pdf of this poster

    CLICK HERE for a full list of all 15 Cases we have highlighted

    If you would like to contribute to the costs of these advertisements CLICK HERE

     

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

  • Committee forwards plan to criminalize spanking-California

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61722


    WND


    CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN’
    ‘I’m a parent, arrest me,’ woman tells lawmakers
    Committee forwards plan to criminalize spanking


    Posted: April 15, 2008
    © 2008 WorldNetDailyA California mother of five has told members of a legislative committee their plan to criminalize spanking by concerned parents would mean that misbehavior and rebellion no longer could be corrected, and she could face arrest.Sarah Berke appeared today before the Democrat-controlled Assembly Public Safety Committee, whose members listened to her, then advanced the plan to criminalize spanking with any “implement,” such as a wooden spoon, little paddle, rolled-up newspaper, switch, belt or brush.

    The proposal is a rerun of last year’s attempt to do the same thing, criminalize parents who spank their children, by redefining it as child abuse.

    “I’m here today as one of the thousands of parents in our state who love our children and believe in traditional values,” she said. “As someone dead-set against the evil of child abuse, I also have a strong faith that calls on me to correct misbehavior and rebellion when it occurs.”

    She said that means, “spanking once in a while.”

    However, “my faith and moral beliefs that teach me to ‘train up a child in the way he should go’ would make me a suspected child abuser under AB 2943,” she said. “Under this bill, I could be arrested and charged with child abuse. I could be tried in criminal court, be sent to jail for a year, and lose custody of my children.

    “AB 2943 tramples the rights of good parents to raise their children with various methods of correction and discipline. This is wrong. Spanking isn’t child abuse,” she said.


    California Assembly Speaker pro Tempore Sally Lieber

    The proposal is being backed by Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who launched the same campaign a year ago, only to see it fail then.

    Her plan would define any spanking with the use of an “implement” as child abuse.

    “AB 2943 will result in good parents being arrested, handcuffed, and charged with criminal child abuse,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families. No state legislature has passed a bill like this, and no state or federal court has ruled that spanking is child abuse.”

    Voting to endorse the plan were Jose Solorio of Santa Ana, Hector De La Torre of Los Angeles, Fiona Ma of San Francisco, Anthony Portantino of La Caqada Flintridge and Curren Price of Inglewood. All are Democrats. Republican Greg Aghazarian of Stockton voted against.

    The proposal next goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the body that halted last year’s plan by Lieber because of the expected costs, and the status of California’s red-drenched state checkbook.

    “This bad bill labels tens of thousands of good fathers and good mothers as violent child abusers,” Thomasson said. “Under AB 2943, all mandatory reporters, including teachers, police officers, social workers, counselors and clergy, must be trained to see parents who spank as potential child abusers. The fact that Sally Lieber wants to order good parents into a ‘nonviolent parental education class’ demonstrates that she thinks parents who spank are violent child abusers.”

    “This is so wrong – God gave children to parents, not to the state,” said Thomasson, whose organization is providing Californians with information to call and e-mail their state lawmakers about the plan.

    Lieber has claimed this year’s effort would only deal with child abuse, just as last years. But she also affirms that all spanking, by definition, is child abuse.

    Those arrested could be charged and tried in a criminal court and be sentenced to a year in jail and lose custody of their children, the family organization said. In addition, it said, such cases could be referred to Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court.

    “It’s shameful that a lawmaker wants to ban parents from lovingly disciplining their children,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Family Impact.

    “Many parents use a wooden spoon or similar instrument to discipline a disobedient child because they don’t want to use their hand, an instrument of love,” she said.

    Meredith Turney, the organization’s legislative liaison, testified against the plan.

    “AB 2943 equates kicking, cutting or burning a child with a responsible spanking,” she said. “The millions of responsible parents who lovingly discipline their children would never engage in such abusive behavior as burning or cutting their children,” she said.

    The California Teacher’s Association, however, supported the plan, saying, “The use of physical punishment teaches children that violence/physical force is an acceptable method to resolve differences. We need to stop the cycle of violence…”

    That organization also supported teaching homosexuality in class, as well as supported communist teachers in public schools, England said.

    “It is shocking and outrageous that the largest teachers’ union in the state wants to intrude into our homes and tell us how to raise our children,” stated England. “Not content with simply indoctrinating students with communism and homosexuality, the union now wants to prevent parents from disciplining their children.”

    England said current law already addresses abuse adequately.

    “This bill goes much further and seeks to prohibit parents from raising healthy, responsible children,” she said.

    “There is contempt in the legislature for Judeo-Christian values and AB 2943 is the most blatant evidence of this attempt to take away our freedom to raise children according to our beliefs,” Turney said.

    Lieber’s plan last year drew objections even from editorialists.

    The Contra Costa Times said the bill “is completely unenforceable. Are we to expect a 2-year-old to dial 911 and report a parent for swatting him or her on the behind?”

    The newspaper’s editorial took a straightforward shot at the issue.

    “With all of the pressing problems facing our state, what issue has the knickers of our esteemed lawmakers in such a twist? What burning concern has the ponderous pundits on the cable news shows frothing at the mouth?

    “Global warming? Plunging real estate values? Good-paying jobs being shipped off to India every time you turn around? Maybe the governor’s new health care proposal?

    “None of the above.

    “The latest meaningless, national distraction, is a silly bill proposed by Assembly Pro Tem Speaker Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, that would make it a crime to spank any child 3 years old or younger.”

    The editorial’s suggestion? “Get real.”

  • Anti-Smacking Law Now Proved to Criminalise Good Parents

    MEDIA RELEASE

    10 April 2008

    Anti-Smacking Law Now Proved to Criminalise Good Parents

    Family First NZ says that the charging of a Glen Innes man which was subsequently dismissed in the Auckland District Court today is evidence that good parents are victims of the anti-smacking law, a law which has done nothing to stem rates of real child abuse.

    “The lawyer representing the father is agreeing with Family First’s original assertions that good and loving fathers (and mothers) would be victims of this ideologically flawed law, that members of families would use it against other members, and that supporters of Bradford’s anti-smacking law have simply abused child abuse laws,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    Family First has already publicized many cases where good parents have come under the suspicion and investigation of CYF and police for light smacking, or not even smacking at all.

    “As well as the many cases of good parents being investigated, here we have perfect evidence of wasted police resources and time and a good family impacted by badly drafted legislation resulting in a good father being charged and dragged through court.”

    “It is sad that it comes in a week where a step-father has been charged with the murder of 22-month-old Tokoroa boy Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn, a woman has been charged with the murder of ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa from Manurewa, a father has been charged with the murder of Otahuhu two-month-old Tahani Mahomed from Otahuhu last December, and two men have already pleaded guilty to the gang-related drive-by shooting of Wanganui toddler Jhia Te Tua,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Sue Bradford was right. The anti-smacking law has done nothing to stop child abuse.”

    Family First is demanding that the anti-smacking law be amended to protect good parenting, and that resources, policing and policy is targeted at the real causes of child abuse. Family First’s 5-point Action Plan can be viewed at www.stoptheabuse.org.nz.

    “The promises made by Helen Clark and John Key have tragically, especially for this family but also for all NZ parents, shown the law to be severely deficient,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

    Original story http://www.stuff.co.nz/4473820a11.html

  • Couple turned down as foster parents for smacking policy-UK

    David and Heather Bowen, who only smack their daughter as a last resort.

    David and Heather Bowen, who only smack their daughter as a last resort.

     http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/display.var.2183789.0.couple_turned_down_as_foster_parents_for_smacking_policy.php

    Couple turned down as foster parents for smacking policy

    By Phil Hill

    A CHRISTIAN couple have been barred from fostering because they occasionally smack their own daughter as “a last resort”.

    David and Heather Bowen, of Whitmore Road, Taunton, say they would never smack a foster child.

    But they were rejected because of their discipline policy for their own child, Emma, 9.

    Mrs Bowen, 47, a volunteer helper at Wellsprings Primary School, which Emma attends, said: “We’ve been open and honest – we smack Emma once or twice a year, but wouldn’t smack a foster child.

    “It’s controlled, on the leg and legal.

    “We sit her down and explain what she’s done wrong. It’s a last resort.”

    When the panel turned us down, it felt like walking out of hospital without Jonathan – a sense of loss and grieving.”

    Linda Barnett, Somerset County Council’s Head of Children’s Services, said several factors are considered when selecting foster parents.

    She added: “Where carers have a strong personal belief that differs from the Foster Carer Agreement, it’s potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.

    “This brings into sharp focus the issue of whether they’ll be able to work alongside the local authority in caring for other people’s children.”

    *What are your views on smacking children? Have your say below and vote in our online poll.

    When the panel turned us down, it felt like walking out of hospital without Jonathan – a sense of loss and grieving.”

    Linda Barnett, Somerset County Council’s Head of Children’s Services, said several factors are considered when selecting foster parents.

    She added: “Where carers have a strong personal belief that differs from the Foster Carer Agreement, it’s potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this.

    “This brings into sharp focus the issue of whether they’ll be able to work alongside the local authority in caring for other people’s children.”

    *What are your views on smacking children? Have your say below and vote in our online poll.

  • Scathing attacks on Family First

    http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/Vol_66_Issue_No_3.html

    Scathing attacks on Family First
    by John McNeil

    Family First is bewildered by scathing attacks which have been mounted against it in the past week by two newspapers. The Press in Christchurch printed a vitriolic cartoon which portrayed the organisers of a petition against the anti-smacking legislation as really wanting the wording to read: “Should beating your horse with whips, pipes and timber studded with nails be legal in New Zealand?”

    A Sunday Star Times editorial claimed the referendum was a heavy club by “the religious extremists of Family First” to beat the government with. “It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.” Family First’s national director, Bob McCoskrie, said he has no idea why the newspapers launched these attacks, although it appeared to have been inspired by full-page advertisements run by the organisation in the papers, pointing out the effects of the anti-smacking legislation.

    “You’d think when you have such a strong public reaction to a petition, they would say ‘the people have a concern here, and it sounds legitimate’. But they’re trying to paint the huge majority of Kiwis as ‘religious extremists’ and ‘motley fanatics’. “They’re saying – and Sue Bradford has said the same – that Family First is out of step with reality. I think it might be the opposite, considering that 275,000 people have now signed the petition. It seems they have an agenda that they don’t want the law revisited.”

    Mr McCoskrie said the Sunday Star Times editorial was factually incorrect on several counts. It claimed that Family First had an influence on the last election, when the organisation did not even exist then. The petitions have been launched by two individual people, Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill, not Family First.

    “Family First can’t initiate any referendum. We’re just one of many organisations that got behind them,” he said. Mr McCoskrie said far from being right-wing extremists, Family First has had Labour Party stalwarts tell it they totally oppose the anti-smacking legislation. “In fact, they tried within the Labour Party to get it changed, but to no avail. There was a very strong drive in the Labour Party, particularly from the Pacific sector, for change. I think the drop in Labour support in the polls reflects that, and I think both parties desperately want the issue to go away.”

    MP Sue Bradford has suggested the full-page advertisements be monitored to see whether they contravene the new Electoral Finance Act. However, Mr McCoskrie said the advertisements did not come within the Act’s scope as they were simply an attack on bad legislation and the effect it is having, not promoting or denigrating any particular party.

  • Public school nurse sacked after son reports her for smacking his brother-UK

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/22/nsmack122.xml
    By Nick Britten

    Last Updated: 1:30am GMT 24/03/2008

     

     

     

     

     

    A senior nurse at a leading public school has been sacked after smacking her 10-year-old son at home.

     


    Susan Pope, 45, was investigated by the police who decided she had done nothing wrong after she hit the boy on his bottom.

    But the £25,000-a-year boarding school said that because social services remained involved in the case, it could damage the school’s reputation. It fired her for alleged gross misconduct.

    Mrs Pope, who has three children, is taking the school to an industrial tribunal claiming unfair dismissal.

    The row is likely to reopen the debate about smacking children.

    Mrs Pope said she hit her son on the bottom after he was abusive and repeatedly swore at her. Her elder son, who was 15, called the police. Mrs Pope and her husband, Folker, a chartered surveyor, were arrested and held in a cell for 32 hours.

    They were released without charge and officers contacted them to say no action would be taken. However, Worcestershire social services, called when the couple were arrested, placed the 10-year-old and his younger sister, who was eight at the time, on the child protection register.

    Malvern St James, one of the country’s leading girls’ boarding schools, said it could not risk damage to its reputation if word got out that the senior nurse’s children were on the register. Mrs Pope said: “I feel I have done absolutely nothing wrong and yet have seen my reputation, career and life shattered by this.

    “We are a typical middle-class family who earn well and used to enjoy three or four holidays a year. Now that has gone. Smacking is not against the law in this country and I am a firm believer of physical chastisement within reason. Children need boundaries.

    “My son was behaving badly. I warned him that if he swore at me again I would smack him. He did so I smacked him, over his trousers, on the bottom. My 15-year-old, who was going through a rebellious stage, telephoned the police, something he now regrets and he has since retracted his allegation. The police have decided I did nothing wrong, there is no risk to my children, but the school feel its reputation is more important.

    “I have been a practising nurse for 25 years with an unblemished career, a career which is now over. I have no idea why my children are still on the register. As far as I’m concerned social services jumped in too soon.”

    The incident happened in May last year. Mrs Pope was sacked in January. She has appealed against the decision and is awaiting the outcome. Social services have reviewed the case and decided that the children should stay on the register. A Worcestershire County Council spokesman said it could not comment. However, sources within the department indicated the Popes had not yet satisfied them that they had met the welfare criteria laid out when the children were placed on the register.

       

    “There are issues that still need to be sorted, it’s not simply about a child being smacked,” the source said.

    Malvern St James said it was “inappropriate” to comment on staff. In its letter to Mrs Pope dismissing her, it said that the role of senior nurse involved unsupervised contact with children when they are “particularly vulnerable” and the fact that her children are on the register “gives the school grounds to question whether you are suitable to hold the post”.

    It adds: “The school’s reputation could be severely damaged in the event that any parents or potential parents became aware that the children of the school’s senior nurse were on the child protection register.”

    Mrs Pope’s lawyer, Nick Turner, said he would be suing the police for alleged wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.