Category: News Media/Press Releases

  • 28 February 2007 Remove signs, protester told Smack setback

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/eveningstandard/3977221a6502.html
    Remove signs, protester told Smack setback
    By LEE MATTHEWS – Manawatu Standard | Wednesday, 28 February 2007

    JONATHAN CAMERON/Manawatu Standard

    (To see photo please go to link above)
    UPSETTING SIGNS: Sanson father Wayne Fergusson with his signs protesting the “deluded” campaign by list MP Sue Bradford to make smacking of children illegal. The Manawatu District Council has told Mr Fergusson to take some of the signs down because they are too close to a State highway and might distract drivers.

    Sanson father-of-two Wayne Fergusson wants the right to smack his children when they are naughty.

    He feels so strongly that list MP Sue Bradford has got it wrong with her proposed legislation to make smacking illegal that he has built large protest signs on the front lawn of his State Highway 1 Sanson home.

    The signs urge people to reject Ms Bradford’s bill, and to not criminalise good parents. They publicise the Family First group, which also opposes the legislation.

    “I’ve had people pulling up and coming in and signing the Family First petition. Somebody gave me some vegies the other day as well,” Mr Fergusson said.

    He wants people to think through the proposed legislation, and do something to stop it. He says there is a world of difference between parents smacking children with reasonable force for discipline, and parents and other people who hurt, maim and kill children.

    “We have totally unacceptable rates of violence against children . . . (but) the two issues are separate.

    “This is deluded. It’s going to make good parents into criminals. It’s just going to feed that whole family court abuse industry, lawyers and judges.”

    He said he smacked his children – two sons, aged three and seven – when they deserved it, just as his own father had smacked him.

    Meanwhile, the signs have upset the Manawatu District Council, which has asked Mr Fergusson to remove the ones closest to the road.

    Council spokesman Bob Williams said it was a road safety issue, and had nothing to do with the protest. There were rules about the size and siting of roadside signs because they could distract drivers.

    The council had sent Mr Fergusson a pamphlet explaining the rules.

  • 27 February 2007 – Family Integrity Release – Family Integrity and the Importance of Discipline

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00358.htm

    Family Integrity and the Importance of Discipline
    Tuesday, 27 February 2007, 11:51 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Press Release
    For Immediate Distribution

    My wife and I understand discipline. We just celebrated 28 years of monogamous marriage in which we committed ourselves to each other til death do us part. During this time we’ve had 4 children and adopted 4 others. None of these children have ever been to school: we teach them ourselves at home.

    All are committed to lives of sobriety, chastity, hard work, respect and productivity. None have ever been on the dole, in jail, slept around, smoked dope, dropped drugs or gone nightclubbing. The 4 oldest have played Representative sport in NZ and travelled and worked overseas.

    Among them is a Legal Executive, a Marketing Director for a multi-million dollar book seller in the USA, an RNZAF Avionics Technician and a Highland Dancing instructor. The 5th one, aged 14, almost has enough flying hours to go solo. And even though our single income (working for a charitable trust) has been static at $22,500 for the past nine years, our house, appliances, furniture and all three vehicles are free-hold and we’ve all travelled overseas several times. Discipline makes all these things possible.

    Discipline, training and correction are core parental responsibilities. That includes smacking disobedient and rebellious children, to bring them back into line. Please note: I said smacking, not hitting. The English language has these different words because they mean different things and carry significantly different baggage.

    Why do MPs want to prohibit good parents from effectively correcting their children? Why do they want to criminalise smacking because intellectually or ideologically they cannot tell the difference between smacking and hitting? There are hundreds of parents who will not stop smacking if this ridiculous bill passes, just as a recent TVNZ poll demonstrated. Passing this Bill will alienate, threaten and criminalise the best allies any Government could ever have in the pursuit of a peaceful, orderly society: responsible, hands-on parents.

    Craig Smith National Director Family Integrity

  • 22 February 2007 – 23 February 2007

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00336.htm
    Marc Alexander – Smacking away parental rights

    Friday, 23 February 2007, 4:54 pm
    Press Release: Marc Alexander

    Marc My Words…
    23 February 2007

    Political comment
    By Marc Alexander
    Smacking away parental rights

    Seems to me we’ve let the lunatics have free reign in parliament. Sue Bradford’s private members bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act was backed by Labour, the rest of the Greens, the leader of the so-called Progressives and United last Wednesday. Despite the rhetoric and hot-air on the issue regarding being opposed to child abuse, no-one should be misled: the bill, if passed, cuts to the heart of the role of parenting. This is the nanny state intruding on the rights of parents. Bradford, Clark et al desperately want to apply this kind of ‘feel good’ interventionist balm on the canker of child abuse as a way to ‘prove’ that they’re doing something about it.

    Does anyone really think that doing away with parental rights to determine the appropriateness of discipline will have any effect on our child abuse rates? This is nothing less than bringing in the state to intercede and disrupt the family relationships. It is an attack on ‘family’.

    Now…the piece of legislation (Crimes Act 1961) at the heart of the debate is an example of simplicity and elegance. It reads:

    (1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, 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.

    (2) The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.

    How hard is it to understand the word reasonable? By definition it precludes abuse. Tinkering and word-smithing will increase the likelihood of ambiguity not diminish it. Once we go down the track of saying what implement, force or purpose may be applied, we’ve already lost the plot by trying to encapsulate a contingency for what constitutes reasonable. In a very real way, we destroy rather than enhance its meaning.

    To yank a child from the road when in danger from traffic is using reasonable force. Similarly it can also apply if your child is self-harming and physical restraint is needed. There are many situations where not to apply reasonable force might itself constitute abuse.

    In any case, the repeal of section 59 will criminalise parents and turn their children, neighbours and school teachers into government ‘spies’ as the frontline to ensure compliance. Parents will risk prosecution, fines or a prison sentence. Meanwhile the child would be removed from the home and placed in state care. That may be a scarier prospect than even CYF’s may care to admit. On June 17, 2002 the Dominion ran a report showing that in the previous three years more than 150 children had been removed from State foster parents after being physically, sexually or emotionally abused by them. Details issued by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services under the Official Information Act show that between July 1999 and June 2000, 61 children were removed from their foster parents’care after suffering substantiated instances of abuse. These are kids who were removed from their original families on the premise that they would be safer in State care!

    Fifty-two children were removed from foster care between July 2000 and June 2001, and 45 between July 2001 and March 2002. That constitutes a rate of abuse of children under 17 twice the rate occurring in the general population. Those who claim that no police would prosecute a clearly sensible application of the law (as a result of the repeal of section 59), miss the point – some over-zealous 24 year old idealistic social worker with the best of intentions would!

    In many cases the biggest abuse of our children is not committed by parents but by the state.

    Sadly, we have a tragic record of child abuse in this country: ten year old Craig Manukau was kicked to death, Delcelia Witika, Anaru Rogers, James Whakaruru, and little Lillybing of Carterton all died at the hands of their caregivers. Another toddler, two-year-old Sade Trembath, was beaten so badly by her grandmother that she has permanent brain damage. Let’s not forget the murder charge laid against Hamilton foster father Michael Waterhouse for the death of three year old Huntly boy, Tamati Pokia. The shameful roll call goes on.

    Before we get carried away…let’s pause and reflect that in none of these instances was there even a faint hint of reasonableness: these were all instances of appalling abuse. How many truly believe that a change to section 59 would have saved any of them?

    How we deal with child abuse in New Zealand has nothing to do with section 59, but everything to do with a disparity between parental responsibility and abuse of children. To criminalise the majority of parents in order to deal with a proportionately small group of truly ‘evil parents’ is patently absurd.

    If we want parents to be held responsible for how their kids turn out, why are we taking away the means by which some parents can parent? If it is child abuse we want to target, then let’s stop wasting time attacking good parents and do more to prevent abuse happening in the first place. Let’s start treating those parents as the criminals they surely are, with meaningful sentences.

    Child abuse is already illegal and isn’t protected by section 59 anyway. If the likes of Sue Bradford really did want to do something about child abuse then lets ‘up’ the penalties. Why not provide meaningful sentences and a term of natural life for the very worst offenders?

    The Bradford Bill is the latest in a prolonged attack against our kids. The simple truth is that government no longer trusts the people. Under Labour, and the influence of the Greens, they have enacted legislation that strips the primacy of family in society – replacing it with itself. By blinding us with an orgy of diversity-based rights, the last bastion of inter-generational strength, the family, is being unceremoniously dumped from centre-stage. The rights of children to a mother and father, parental discipline tempered within an environment of love, compassion, and commitment is close to being a thing of the past. The institution of family is slowly being eroded and replaced by an accommodation of expressly defined relationships sanctioned by the state.

    Ever since they abandoned all the other disciplinary measures my forbears and I grew up with (strapping, caning etc) I note how the violent crime rate has exploded. How much more will the Bradford restrictions on parental discipline exacerbate that I wonder?

    When governments start debating what reasonable means, when they second-guess the care provided by good parents, and confuse parental responsibility with child abuse, it’s clear they deserve to lose the confidence of those they purport to represent. They need to go.


    22 February 2007 – Larry Baldock/Sheryl Savill – Petitions on Smacking, Families launched – Maxim In

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00312.htm

    Petitions on Smacking, Families launched
    Thursday, 22 February 2007, 2:15 pm
    Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill

    Press release embargoed until 1.30pm Thursday 22nd February, 2007

    Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill will hold a press conference at the Kingsgate Hotel Gilbert room, 92 Gladstone Rd, Parnell at 1.30pm Thursday 22nd Feb to officially launch two Citizens initiated Referendum petitions which will ask the following questions;

    1.) “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” proposed by Sheryl Savill

    2.) “Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in NZ” proposed by Larry Baldock.

    With the passing of Sue Bradford’s anti smacking, anti correction bill through another stage in parliament last night, it is time for all New Zealander’s to have an opportunity to have their opinion heard in a concrete and constructive way.

    Our purpose in promoting this initiative is at least threefold.

    Firstly, by obtaining at least 300,000 signatures on both petitions in the next few months as the bill is debated in parliament, we can send a strong signal to all MP’s about how seriously concerned many good New Zealand parents feel about the possibility of being criminalised if the bill is passed in its current form.

    Secondly if parliament refuses to listen to the overwhelming majority of us who have indicated in survey after survey that we do not support the banning of smacking, then the Petition will enable our dissent to be clearly counted in a formal referendum at the next election.

    Finally through the second petition we hope to channel the enormous public energy being generated by this debate into a positive and constructive message to government that the majority of New Zealanders will support sensible and constructive efforts to address our unacceptable statistics in regard to our children and young people.

    We reject absolutely the ill conceived notion that the proposed ban on smacking will do anything to stop child abuse. But we must not simply become aroused in our opposition to legislation and then sink back into life as normal, without identifying and supporting alternative solutions. Once the initial step of collecting the required number of signatures is completed, we will be able to engage in a wide discussion about what the Government could and should do, to help in addressing the reality that for too many of our children in this country the quality of their family life is unacceptable.

    Petition forms can be obtained by emailing CIRPetition[at]xtra.co.nz
    Or writing to CIR Petition P.O.Box 9228, Greerton Tauranga.

    ENDS


    Maxim Institute

    http://www.maxim.org.nz

    Real Issues

    No. 241 | 22 February 2007

    Two votes down, one to go

    After heated debate last night, Parliament advanced the so-called “anti-smacking” Bill another stage. The Bill passed its second reading by 70-51, with Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party all voting in favour of the Bill. They were joined by United Future Leader Peter Dunne, three New Zealand First MPs and six National MPs.

    The Bill will now be set down for what is known as the “Committee of the whole House” stage, where any MP can suggest an amendment to it as a precursor to the third and final reading. During this stage, National MP Chester Borrows will propose an amendment which aims to define reasonable force, while allowing parents to use physical force for the purposes of correction.

    This amendment is a sensible solution to a complicated and technical issue and if the amendment has the support of 61 or more MPs it will replace the original Bill. However, sponsor of the original Bill, Green MP Sue Bradford, has threatened to abandon her Bill altogether if the amendment passes, because retaining a right of physical discipline “cuts across the intent of the Bill”, and she has committed to fighting the amendment “tooth and nail”.

    Both supporters and opponents of the Bill agree that child abuse is patently abhorrent. New Zealand has a tragically high rate of child abuse and something must be done to reduce it. However, it is doubtful whether the Bill would make a difference in this regard, and it would have significant negative consequences, including the criminalising of ordinary parents for using mild physical discipline such as a light smack.

    In the debate last night, Ms Bradford insisted that her Bill would not criminalise parents. While this might be her intention, there can be no doubt that the Bill would result in mild discipline falling within the definition of “assault”, thus exposing parents to the risk of criminal prosecution. This is not something good and loving parents should ever have to fear. A great majority of Kiwi parents are decent and competent and should be entrusted with the authority and the responsibility to raise, and discipline, their children.

    With the third reading expected as early as three weeks from now, Parliament will have to decide whether to enact an unworkable law that criminalises parents, or whether to accept a reasonable compromise. Hopefully, commonsense will win the day.

    See how your MP voted at the second reading:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=849

    Read an Issue Snapshot on the repeal of section 59:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/policy___research/article?id=834

    Read Chester Borrows’ proposed amendment:

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6AEC3072-A81A-414E-9D93-AE9950265928/50965/DBHOH_SOP_987_4686.pdf

    Write to the editor:

    http://www.maxim.org.nz/index.cfm/links/ri_writetotheeditor

  • 22 February 2007 – United Future – Anti-smacking bill demands CYF complaints authority

    Media statement – United Future
    For immediate release
    Thursday, 22 February 2007

    Anti-smacking bill demands CYF complaints authority

    United Future deputy leader Judy Turner is warning that Child, Youth and
    Family staff will face a substantial increase in notifications following
    the section 59 repeal Bill passing its second reading.

    “This Bill will increase the workload for CYF social workers who are
    already drowning in their workloads,” warns Mrs Turner.

    “There is a real risk that attention to quality and sound decisions may
    at times be inevitably sacrificed in an attempt to reduce the number of
    unallocated cases.

    “This likelihood makes a complaints authority even more essential, as it
    will allow cases to be reviewed and any errors or bad judgment calls to be
    put right.

    “I know many parents are scared they could face losing their children if
    an over-zealous neighbour phones CYF to notify that they saw them smack
    their child over the fence.

    “An independent complaints authority would at least give New Zealand
    parents an avenue for appeal if the unthinkable were to happen to their
    family – mistakes and bad judgement calls do happen.”

    Hon Ruth Dyson announced in the House last Thursday that, “Following the
    advocacy and hard work undertaken by (Judy Turner), I have requested my
    officials to investigate a complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family
    as in my view the member has proven that it would have merit,”

    “I’m delighted by this undertaking, but such an authority has more merit
    in light of the anti-smacking Bill passing its second reading – it’s an
    absolute necessity,” insists Mrs Turner.

    Ends
    Contact: Judy Turner
    04 4706992
    021 309803

  • 21 February 2007 – Press Release – Family Integrity / Press Release – Lindsay Mitchell/FAMILY FIRST

    Family Integrity – Press Release – Family Integrity Calls For Dumping Of Bill http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00281.htm

    Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 10:25 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Press Release For Immediate Distribution

    With the current Section 59 in place, correction of children is the only acceptable excuse for using force with children. But Green MP Sue Bradford now says that correction of children is the one thing she wants to see specifically forbidden. She is happy to justify parents using reasonable force to prevent bad behaviour, but not to correct it.

    The repeal lobby’s rhetoric has tried to make us believe it was the “reasonable force” they wanted to ban. Their real agenda has been revealed in the Select Committee’s amended version of Section 59 which Bradford help to write. It is the correction of children they want to ban, not the use of reasonable force. In their minds parents may compel children to stop behaving in a certain way, but they must not compel children to behave in a certain way.

    The repeal lobby’s re-write of Section 59 tolerates parents using reasonable force to prevent their children from conforming to harmful, criminal, offensive and disruptive behaviours. But they will not tolerate parents using reasonable force to ensure their children conform to obedient, honest, righteous and respectful behaviours. An agenda that is more anti-parent, anti-family, in fact, one that is more foolish, illogical, non-sensical and counter to all that makes for a peaceful and orderly society would be hard to imagine.

    Dump this ridiculous Bill to repeal Section 59 once and for all.

    Ends


    Lindsay Mitchell – Press Release – Removal of S59 Gross Failure to Tackle Child Abuse

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00293.htm

    Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 3:56 pm
    Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
    Media Release

    Removal of S59 a Gross Failure to Tackle Child Abuse
    Wednesday, February 21, 2007

    “The removal of section 59 is covering up a gross failure to tackle the causes of child abuse,” Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today.

    “The first evidence I can find of government agencies acknowledging child abuse is from 1967. Child Welfare conducted a survey of the 210 confirmed cases that year. What they found was a strong association between illegitimacy and child abuse. Maori children were 6 times more likely to be victims.”

    “That’s forty years ago and policy makers are still refusing to face this reality, wringing hands over unpartnered, teenage birth and claiming all these girls need is more support in bringing up their babies. The focus of that support has largely been financial thereby inadvertently exacerbating the problem. Pay girls to have and keep babies and that is what they will do, whether or not they are emotionally capable of parenting them.”

    “It snuck below the radar last week that the teenage birth rate had risen again. It has climbed for four consecutive years. The Maori rate is more than four times higher than NZ European.”

    “Rather than fiddling with section 59 we should be stopping welfare to teenagers, blitzing contraception use and encouraging adoption. Do we have any politicians brave enough to act on these ideas?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excellent press release!

    Removal of Section 59 will not stop child abuse. Instead, children and
    their parents and families will be open to administrative, physical and mental
    abuse. There are all too many tens of thousands of cases here in Sweden,
    that boasts to be the first country in the world to abolish smacking
    children.

    Of course, it is absolutly terrible that some children are beaten to
    death, stabbed or shot by their parents or step-parents but that doesn’t give
    parliament the right to forbid parents to smack their children when
    words and admonition are ineffective to correct bad or even criminal
    behaviour.

    Children are also beaten to death, stabbed or shot by their foster
    parents.

    But then, they are in the “protective custody of the state” so those
    cases are silenced.

    The percentage of abused or rather ill-treated children is very small
    compared to the percentage of children who never see the light of day
    because the law permits their parents and medical staff to kill them
    before they are born.

    The child protection lobby usually try to brush off any references to
    abortion statistics, but only 50 years ago two European women – the
    mother and her abortionist – were sentenced to death because they caused the
    death of an unborn child. WW2 was raging at the same time, killing millions of
    people.

    There is a total lacking of a sense of proportions. In Sweden there is a
    saying “One sifts mosquitos, but swallow camels”.

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson


    Family First – Press Release – Why We Oppose Anti-Smacking Bill

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00296.htm

    7 More Good Reasons Why We Oppose Bradford’s Anti-Smacking Bill

    From the group that’s “whipping up hysteria” according to Sue Bradford – because we’re presenting the Facts!!

    1. No decent research shows smack by a loving parent breeds violence
    Otago University study 2006 – children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.

    Fergusson and Lynskey (Christchurch School of Medicine) – found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment “ It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences”

    2. UNICEF reports prove there is no link between smacking and child abuse
    2003 UNICEF report on maltreatment deaths.

    Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking !

    Austria banned smacking in 1989 – is the 5th highest for child abuse death rates

    2007 Report released last week : “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”

    The safest country for children is Netherlands – hasn’t banned smacking . Of the 10 top countries, 6 haven’t banned smacking.

    The 2006 CYF report “Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention”
    identified the factors which signaled greater risk for children including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and family breakdown. Statistics also showed that children living in households with an adult unrelated to them were almost 50 times as likely to die of an inflicted injury as those living with two biological parents!

    Example: Just one of the real causes – Substance Abuse
    UNICEF report 2003 – Child welfare professionals – 80% said “substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment”
    85% of States in US report substance abuse and poverty leading problems in families reported for abuse
    Substance abuse triples risk for child maltreatment

    3. Sweden experience is a warning to us
    Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban – Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
    2000 Swedish Govt report – “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
    Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s – twice as many kids being removed from their families
    European Crime and Safety Safety – UN, Euro Commission – published this month – Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU

    Lies…..
    Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years. – Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
    “The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years” – Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
    • “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years”
    Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release – Dr Cindy Kiro – 03/11/2004

    The Truth
    Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
    “Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,”

    4. Polls
    Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo. Politicians need to listen to the people.

    5. Police won’t prosecute
    Domestic Violence Policy currently being enforced by Police strongly encourages arrest at the time and denies Police Diversion except where authorised by the District Commander. Diversions are rarely given for domestic violence matters. The Police Association admitted today (21 Feb) that they will have to investigate any complaint.

    As noted by Cabinet, anyone may bring a prosecution for breach of criminal law e.g. lobby group could bring private prosecution against smack or removal to ‘time out’ – not determined by Police

    6. Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
    2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
    2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
    2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) –Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
    2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
    SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK

    7. Smacking isn’t violence – it’s correction
    Children are already protected from violence and assault through the Crimes Act
    Smacking is in harmony with nature – pain teaches e.g a child teases a dog, they get a dog bite – a child touches the hot element, they get burnt – they take their hands off the handles of the bike – they crash!
    Does this teach a child to be a violent person? NO!
    A Reasonable smack from loving parent is great teaching tool

  • 20 February 2007

    FAMILYFIRST
    MEDIA RELEASE

    20 FEBRUARY 2007

    Letter urges Parliament to Support Parents – not Criminalise Them

    Hundreds of kiwi parents and grandparents urge politicians to retain section 59 Crimes Act

    Over 1200 NZ’ers, including All Black greats Michael Jones, Inga Tuigamala and Eroni Clarke, ex Silver Fern Linda Vagana, Broadcaster Simon Barnett, Oceania Player of the Century Wynton Rufer and hundreds of parents and grandparents have sent an Open Letter (see below) to the Prime Minister and all MP’s calling on them to reject Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill and the ‘Anti-Correction’ Amendments recommended by the Select Committee.

    The Signatories include Social Workers, School Principals, Teachers, Early Childhood Educators, Police Officers, Doctors, Counsellors, Youthworkers, and representatives of over 50 pro-family organizations. Many teenagers have also put their signature to the letter, as have senior managers and business owners – the majority of signatories are also parents and grandparents.

    “Most of these people are not child development experts and have not adopted moral supremacy and appointed themselves as the experts on parenting and the well-being of children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First who co-ordinated the letter. “They are simply the mums and dads of this country who on a daily basis are striving to raise law-abiding children who will make a positive contribution to this country. They deserve to be applauded – not threatened with criminalisation because so-called experts don’t agree with how they parent.”

    Mr McCoskrie says that the organisers were blown away by the overwhelming support for the Letter. They originally hoped to get 150-200 signatures but in the end had to close the Register two weeks early.

    “Our message is that child abuse is a major problem in NZ but we must tackle the real causes – family breakdown, dysfunction and substance abuse, rather than penalising and exposing to criminalisation good parents for simply giving their children appropriate care, correction and loving discipline.”

    Mr McCoskrie says there is not a single piece of reputable research which proves that appropriate smacking leads to abuse or results in violent and dysfunctional children – in fact the research shows the opposite.

    “Politicians will also be very aware that poll after poll after poll, both in NZ and in Australia and England, support the retention of section 59 (average of 80% support). This is because NZ’ers understand that parental discipline in the form of a smack is totally different to child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For more information contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
    email. bob@familyfirst.org.nz | www.familyfirst.org.nz

    OPEN LETTER

    To: Rt Hon Helen Clark – Prime Minister
    Leaders of All Political Parties in Parliament
    and Members of Parliament

    20 February 2007

    Dear Prime Minister, Parliamentary Leaders and Members:

    We oppose child abuse in all its forms. We acknowledge that New Zealand has a terrible problem with child abuse, and that the law on parental discipline could be amended to prevent any questionable cases.

    We believe the answer to the prevalence of child abuse in New Zealand includes:

    education on different options and alternatives for parenting and discipline;
    tackling significant contributing factors such as family breakdown, substance abuse and poverty;

    introducing policies which strengthen marriage, families and parental responsibility.

    But we call on all political parties to reject Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, and the recommendations put forward by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

    The Bill, and the Select Committee amendments, will not promote the interests of children or enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities, for a number of reasons:

    1. If the Bill is passed, good parents will be treated as criminals under the law. The police have confirmed that smacking a child would be assault. They will have to investigate any complaint made against a parent for smacking or even picking up a child to remove them to ‘time out’ against their wishes. This will immediately place a family under enormous pressure. While some say parents won’t be prosecuted, the police have to enforce the law, regardless of what politicians say.

    “The central issue is that people need to know what they are allowed to do and what they’re not allowed to do, and they shouldn’t be overshadowed by the fear of their conduct being regarded as criminal and therefore subject to some bureaucrat or police officer making some decision further down the track that they’ve done something wrong and can be prosecuted … The behaviour of parents will be criminalised and people are brought into an area of uncertainty where they are being told that what you are doing is wrong but we’re not going to prosecute you because you’re acting reasonably” Grant Illingworth QC – National Radio interview 21 November 2006

    2. Simply banning smacking will not stop child abuse. In 2003, a UNICEF report identified poverty, stress and family breakdown – along with drug and alcohol abuse – as the factors most closely and consistently associated with child abuse and neglect.

    Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow parents to use reasonable discipline such as smacking. The evidence clearly shows that there are far greater factors in the prevalence of child abuse that need to be urgently tackled and we call on politicians to address these factors.

    3. Child abuse is already illegal in New Zealand. The law already says that child abusers have committed a crime, and the full weight of the existing law should be used to bring a full and just punishment.

    4. Reasonable smacking does not damage children or teach them to be violent. In fact, a recent Otago University study found that children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.

    5. Kiwis know the difference between smacking and child abuse and should be given credit for this. Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo.

    In conclusion, repeal of section 59 or prohibiting reasonable correction (as recommended by the Select Committee) will place good parents at risk by criminalising them simply for giving their children appropriate care, correction and loving discipline, to the detriment of those children.

    This is an unacceptable burden to place on New Zealand families.

    We commend MPs for their desire to deal with our abhorrent rates of child abuse.

    We wish to work with you and other New Zealanders to stop child abuse.

    For the sake of our families and our country, please do not penalise good parents doing a great job.

    (Family Integrity has seen the list of signatories to this letter).

  • 31 December 2006 – 15 February 2007

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0702/S00292.htm

    First step for CYF complaints authority

    Thursday, 15 February 2007, 4:35 pm
    Press Release: United Future NZ Party
    Media statement For immediate release Thursday, 15 February 2007

    Dyson announces first step for CYF complaints authority

    The United Future deputy leader is delighted with the announcement from the Minister for Child, Youth and Family (CYF) that officials have begun work towards the establishment of an independent complaints authority for the service.

    “Following the advocacy and hard work undertaken by (Judy Turner), I have requested my officials to investigate a complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family as in my view the member has proven that it would have merit,” said Ruth Dyson.

    Mrs Dyson also confirmed “further work on such a complaints authority will continue with the participation of United Future.”

    Mrs Turner said she is overjoyed at the announcement, but that the real winners of such an authority will be New Zealand families and children in particular.

    “Finally the first steps are being taken to establish an independent entity to ensure CYF becomes accountable to New Zealand families.

    “I look forward to pushing ahead with further work on the issue. I am also delighted that the hard work put in to sustaining a positive working relationship between United Future and the Government, has again led to a likely result that will benefit a large number of New Zealand families and children,” said Mrs Turner.


    15 February 2007 – Family First – Children’s Needs More Important Than Their Rights

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00205.htm

    UNICEF Report Highlights Children’s Needs More Important Than Their Rights

    The UNICEF report released overnight is of no surprise to pro-family organisations who have been concerned about the rise of children’s rights, while at the same time children’s basic needs are not being met.

    “Recent reports of mothers being discharged from hospital immediately after giving birth, the under-funding of crucial services like Plunketline and HIPPY, and the lack of follow-up regarding immunisations for children are all examples of basic core services which children are missing out on,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The claimed link between smacking and child abuse has also been dealt another blow, with the UNICEF report quite correctly stating “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.””

    Mr McCoskrie says the proposed banning of smacking will have no effect on these factors at all, and simply diverts attention away from the real issues.

    “Our high teenage birth rate – now the 2nd highest in the OECD and almost double the OECD average – proves the failure of groups like Family Planning and the supposed “safe sex”message,” says Mr McCoskrie. “It is now time we expected wise decisions from our young people and taught them the benefits of delaying sexual activity.”

    As the report states: “Pregnancy has become a significant problem: giving birth at too young an age is now associated with wideranging disadvantage for both mother and child -including a greater likelihood of dropping out of school, of having no or low qualifications, of being unemployed or low-paid, and of living in poor housing conditions.”

    The breakdown of the family and its effect is also clearly evident in the report. The UK and US have the highest rates of children living in single-parent families and step-families, resulting in the worst overall rates of behaviour and risk-taking activities such as obesity, substance abuse, violence and sexual risk-taking.

    “With the OECD average of single-parent families being 12.7%, and NZ’s recent Census showing 30% of families with children being led by a single-parent, the effect of neglecting the family structure and its effect on our children is plain to see,” says Mr McCoskrie


    9 February 2007 – Family Integrity – Parenting is Bradford’s Target

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00101.htm

    Friday, 9 February 2007, 9:32 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Parenting is Bradford’s Target

    Has anyone read the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s report on Bradford’s Bill to ban smacking?

    It appears to actually extend the use of smacking and other forms of reasonable force into areas many parents wouldn’t have thought of before. But the one area where responsible parents should definitely use reasonable force in the training and discipline of their children is the one area the Committee specifically ruled out of bounds: the correction of children.

    The Committee has decided not to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act as Bradford’s Bill wanted. Instead they’ve rewritten Section 59. In it they outline four areas wherein reasonable force can legitimately be used by parents. Now remember, Bradford’s objection to Section 59 was that it allows parents a defence of reasonable force when correcting their children, but that is the only motivation Section 59 allows. This new rewrite, however, allows reasonable force – smacking – for a whole range of other motivations, but not for correction.

    According to the rewrite of Section 59, parents can smack their children if it will stop them from an act of swearing or stealing. But if the child refuses to apologise for swearing or to give back the stolen item, the parent cannot smack or use any other kind of reasonable force, including time out, for this would be deemed as corrective, a motivation and purpose of reasonable force the rewrite specifically forbids.

    So we see that Bradford was never really interested in stopping parents from smacking or using reasonable force with their children. It is parents correcting their children that she objects to. It is apparently her goal to stop parents from performing one of their core tasks as parents: correcting their children’s behaviour.


    8 February 2007 – United Future Press Release – Turner exposes CYFS crisis

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0702/S00099.htm

    Turner exposes CYFS crisis
    Thursday, 8 February 2007, 2:19 pm
    Press Release: United Future NZ Party

    Thursday, 8 February 2007
    Turner exposes CYFS crisis

    United Future family spokesperson Judy Turner today revealed the entire oversight panel in Tauranga that reviews the work of the Child, Youth and Family Service in the city has been sacked – by the Tauranga CYFS site manager.

    “I’m informed this extraordinary action was taken because the manager thought the panel was too confrontational and too critical of CYFS staff,” said Mrs Turner.

    “The job of the Care & Protection Resource Panel is to advise social workers responding to notifications, and to ensure that the standard of social work practice is sufficient to ensure the safety of children.

    “The panel has recently criticised the decision by site management to withhold some notifications from the panel, where the decision by social workers was to close the notification.

    “The panel believed that this may lead to unsafe practises for children. Even when an attempt was made to rectify this concern, the panel still ended up being expected to rubber stamp cases that had been already closed, contrary to the Act, which requires the panel to provide advice on all notifications.

    “The problem seems to be driven by a government policy that requires there to be no unallocated cases.

    “This sees social workers focusing on output rather than outcomes based on quality social work. Even once an intervention has happened, the department seems to change gear and focus on their new policy of strongly encouraging foster parents to assume the care of the children under the Care of Children Act, a policy driven by budgetary aims rather than the best interests of children.

    “The Tauranga Resource Panel certainly seemed very concerned about inadequate social work in many cases.

    “I am concerned that the site manager has been able to fire the entire panel against the Department’s own guidelines which state that a third of the panel must be retained.

    “Surely we don’t want to see these panels muzzled in any way that ends up making a mockery of the whole process.

    “This is surely further evidence of the urgent need for an independent complaints authority to look into complaints against CYFS,” said Mrs Turner.

    ENDS

    Contact: Judy Turner MP
    Tel: 04 470 6992
    Cell: 021 309803


    31 Dec 2006 – Family First – Bradford’s Smacking Ban is most anti-family Bill before Parl. in 2007

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0701/S00006.htm

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/31_12_06_Family_First_releases_Top_Five_Pro_Family_Policies_for_2007.html/31_12_06_Family_First_releases_Top_Five_Pro_Family_Policies_for_2007.pdf

    MEDIA RELEASE
    31 DECEMBER 2006

    Bradford’s Smacking Ban is most anti-family Bill before Parliament in 2007

    Family First releases Top Five Pro-Family Policies for 2007
    Green MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to ban smacking and parental correction has been identified as the most anti-family piece of legislation which will come before MP’s in 2007.

    Family First has released its Top Five Pro-Family Policies for 2007 and at the top of the list is the rejection of Bradford’s Bill to ban smacking and reasonable correction by parents.

    “To threaten to criminalise the 95%-plus of good parents who are doing a great job and who are using techniques of parenting and guidance proved beneficial throughout the generations before, is a slap in the face to NZ families,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “MP’s need to support and encourage parents, not expose them to prosecution and unnecessary interference by Social Workers.”

    Also included on the list of pro-family policies is better recognition of full-time parents who sacrifice careers and income to raise their children full-time; dealing with the real issues of child abuse with tougher policies on drug and alcohol abuse which are also major contributors to domestic violence, juvenile crime, and gang activity; removal of the current Chief Censor and the toughening of censorship laws; and the strengthening of families with policies which encourage stability and best environment for children through marriage and an emphasis on the important role of fathers.

    “The environment in which we raise our children sets the scene for the NZ of tomorrow. At the moment, parents are finding our society extremely counter-cultural to raising children,” says Mr McCoskrie. “These policies will start to address some of the major concerns of NZ parents.”

    5 Top Pro-Family Policies for 2007
    1. Rejection of Sue Bradford’s Bill to ban smacking and parental correction.

    Invest in positive parenting programmes which educate and support parents e.g. Parents Inc, HIPPY, Brainwave Trust etc. Identify and target the actual causes of child abuse without penalising the huge proportion of great parents.

    2. Recognition and Financial Support for Full-Time Parents
    The Government continues to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the Childcare and Pre-school Industry yet refuses to acknowledge the huge numbers of parents who sacrifice income and career to raise their children full-time. These parents should be acknowledged, resourced, and encouraged – not told to become economic units by getting back into the workforce.

    A recent Massey University study of 1300 people showed that only 2% of respondents approved of women working full-time when they had children under school age. Almost half believed that a pre-schooler suffered and family life suffered when the mother had a part-time job. Having two fulltime working parents is not in the best interests of young children. Yet, for many parents, they have no choice.

    Why do we pay ‘professional care-givers’ to care for our kids yet refuse to acknowledge the most natural caregivers – the parents themselves. We must invest in immediate funding of Plunket Helpline, along with fieldwork organisations working with mums and dads, especially first time parents.

    3. Tougher Policies on Drugs and Alcohol Abuse
    MP’s ‘dropped the ball’ in this area when they rejected the Bill to raise the Drinking Age. The Drinking Culture has been fed by the proliferation of retailers pushing the sale of alcohol (and therefore more available to teenagers), the extensive advertising afforded by the alcohol industry, and the poor role modeling by sports and media personalities. Much tougher laws on liquor licensing are urgently needed, along with major restrictions on alcohol advertising.

    A clear message also needs to be sent from Parliament regarding Drugs, including Marijuana, and a ban on Party Pills. Sufficient resources must be urgently made available to crush the ‘P’ industry which is destroying lives and families.

    4. Change the Censor – Toughen the Censorship Laws
    We have allowed an increasing and unacceptable level of violence and sexual content into our media in the name of free speech. The Chief and Deputy Censor have been responsible for the release of brutal rape and sexually violent films all at a time in which domestic violence, demand for Women’s Refuges, and violent and sexual crime is on the increase.

    There are also a huge numbers of hard core obscene DVDs that are cleared for adult (R18) home viewing ‘entertainment’ every month which are easily accessible to young people, as evidenced by the number of teenagers who have played Grant Theft Auto, despite its R18 status. Criminal activities such as rape, sexual violation of corpses, and degrading, demeaning and dehumanising treatment of women have been reduced to supposed ‘entertainment’ by these films.

    We cannot continue to ‘feed’ this material into our community without seeing it manifested at some level. We need Censors and a Censorship Board who will act in the best interests of all NZ’ers and families.

    5. Strengthen marriages, families, and the role of fathers
    The evidence is quite clear – Marriage is good for a nation. Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding marriage – that marriage increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse.

    Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of school failure, the risk of suicide, psychological distress, and most significantly, delinquent and criminal behaviour.

    So many young offenders are coming from families where there is family breakdown, the absence of a father and parenting difficulties, not to mention violence and unemployment issues.

    According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. Too many children are growing up in NZ without their dad actively involved, and with little expectation from the State for this to change.

    We need to encourage and strengthen marriage, including pre-marriage counselling and Marriage Centres used successfully in Australia. We need to hold fathers accountable to their responsibilities, both financially and in terms of involvement in raising their children.

    ENDS

    For more information contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
    email. bob@familyfirst.org.nz | www.familyfirst.org.nz
    P.O. Box 276-133, Manukau City, Auckland, New Zealand

  • 30 October 2006 – 21 December 2006


    21 December 2006 – Crimes Act amendment smacked down AND POLL

    AND POLL

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/563200/939668

    Dec 21, 2006

    The family law section of the Law Society says proposed amendments to Section 59 of the Crimes Act are inadequate.

    A select committee decided to revise the anti-smacking bill in November by repealing Section 59 and replacing it with a section allowing the use of reasonable force in some situations.

    Section chairman Simon Maude says the society has been mulling over the changes to the proposed bill and has decided they make things worse.

    He says the proposal does nothing to assist police or the courts in defining what levels of force are allowed.


    15 December 2006 – Family First – Children’s Needs, not Rights, should be the Focus

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0612/S00194.htm


    Children’s Needs, not Rights, should be the Focus
    Friday, 15 December 2006, 10:28 am
    Press Release: Family First

    Children’s Needs, not Rights, should be the Focus

    Bob McCoskrie –National Director Family First

    Parents have every right to be very nervous over recent media reports of cases involving the rise in Children’s Rights.

    The first warning shot was news of a teenager effectively ‘divorcing’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules. The mother, in a letter to her local MP, listed reasons the daughter won under “unusual circumstances” to have guardianship placed with the court including the facts that the 16-year-old is given permission by her older sister to stay at friends’ houses on school nights when that would be denied by her mother.

    Otago University law faculty dean Mark Henaghan said the case is the consequence of the Care of Children Act (2005) which recognises children as independent entities rather than members of their families. The Act gives the wishes of children more prominence, removing age and maturity as factors in court decisions. Henaghan cites a case where a four-year-old’s views should have been taken into account in a family dispute, and believes there will be a rise in such cases.

    The report of a girl (well under the age of sexual consent) being sneaked off by her school to get contraceptives without any parental knowledge should be another warning.

    The girl’s stepmother only found the pills when she was cleaning out her stepdaughter’s locker. The label on the box of pills showed the girl’s name, care of the school, and one packet was dated back to when the girl was only 13. The parent, not surprisingly, felt a sense of absolute disbelief. The medical implications of being on the pill also concerned the family.

    And we have Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill which sends a clear message to parents that they are no longer primary guardians of their children. The State and its agencies know better and parents who responsibly correct their children will become guilty of assault and criminalised.

    Ironically, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is constantly quoted as the catalyst for removing section 59, acknowledges the important role of parents in raising a child with appropriate direction, guidance, and correction.

    It recognises the right, and duty, of parents to provide direction and guidance in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Yet our new, and ironically named, Care of Children Act says that age and maturity should not be factors when considering the views of a child.

    Any parent knows that the capacity of a child is very different to the capacity of an adult. That’s why we have laws protecting children from sexual involvement and exploitation, driving vehicles, voting, drinking alcohol, certain purchases, watching violent and sexually explicit movies etc. That’s why we say “no pudding until you eat your peas”, and “get to bed now!” That’s why we need to train and correct children in a way that is different to how we deal with adults.

    A recently published book on children’s rights “From Innocents to Agents – Children and Children’s Rights in New Zealand” by Dr Michael Reid, previously a researcher with research and public policy think tank the Maxim Institute, is compelling.

    It highlights deep concerns around the politicisation of children’s rights.

    Dr Reid says that children are no longer being seen as innocent and vulnerable, but as full human beings needing support to assert rights to autonomy and independence.

    He warns that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is part of a wider attempt to redefine the family, and an “undermining of what some saw as oppressive parental rights to control children.”

    For example, Articles 15 and 16 of the Convention argue the right of a child to associate with others, the right to protection from interference, and the right to privacy. Yet what happens when children want to start dating, stay out late, engage in sexual activity, and view objectionable video games or movies at home? Dr Reid warns that “as the wider rights culture moved to uphold the child’s individual autonomy, this came – in the home setting at least – at the expense of a parental right to prohibit these practices.”

    Parents are right to be indignant about a government and state encroaching on ‘their turf’. Child abuse is truly awful but an increasing fixation with children’s rights will not reduce child abuse.
    Too many ‘concerned’ and ‘child-friendly’ organisations and governments are not only doing the worthy task of protecting children who are emotionally and physically vulnerable, but have adopted moral supremacy and appointed themselves as the experts on parenting and the well-being of children.

    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.

    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.

    The nurturing needs of children should be paramount. They’ll have plenty of rights, and responsibilities, to worry about when they become adults.

    ENDS


    28 November 2006 – The liberal establishment wants to ban smacking

    From: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/anne_atkins/2006/11/post_716.html

    .
    .
    The liberal establishment wants to ban smacking, but it’s the parents we should trust on how to discipline children.

    The trouble with the

    debate on smacking is there has been excess of knee-jerk, emotional reaction and a paucity of logical, objective thought. In fact, there hasn’t really been a debate at all. Mostly contributions on the level of, “My mother walloped all of us and it never did us any harm,” or alternatively, “My father used to beat me really unfairly, and I’ve hated him ever since.”

    The voice I’ve heard most often from those campaigning on the subject runs something like this: “If you’d seen the distressing abuse I’ve seen, you wouldn’t hesitate to make hitting children a criminal offence.” It’s a powerful appeal. But it isn’t rational. Abusing children is already a criminal offence. If the law can’t stop it now, it won’t stop it if we make smacking illegal. But that’s not to say it won’t have any effect. It certainly will.

    But first we should decide on various principles of child rearing, one being whether or not we think incentives and disincentives are legitimate tools in the bringing up of children at all. There are some who think they are not. I have a very close friend who genuinely set out, when she started a family, with the view that any encouragement after a good deed was a form of bribery, and therefore somehow tacky. She would not cuddle, praise or enthuse about her children if they did something that pleased her, because she said they should be encouraged all the time. She certainly didn’t believe in “punishment”. You simply explain to children, that’s all. Just try it.

    I’m sorry to say that she was so ragged and exhausted after several children and several years of this ideology that she was yelling at her children all the time. She certainly punished them – but not with any method or system that enabled them to know when they were doing the right thing and would be rewarded, or how to avoid doing the wrong thing so they wouldn’t reap its unpleasant circumstances.

    The trouble with this beautiful theory is that it simply doesn’t work. None of us responds only to explanation. Would you really never break the speed limit or park on a double yellow if it was simply explained to you why you shouldn’t, but you knew there wouldn’t ever be adverse consequences for you? Why do we bother to get out of bed and go to work in the morning? Aren’t we all motivated by the incentive of the pay cheque and the disincentive of the sack? Would you go on buying Christmas presents for your loved one if he never even smiled at you to show you he was pleased, let alone thanked you and said how much he liked it?

    Reasoning is fine (“he likes it; he just isn’t very demonstrative”) but the encouragement is what makes it worth it. Similarly, explanations are good (“Tommy doesn’t like you spitting at him”), but it’s the discouragement that actually stops us.

    If we can’t agree on this point, actually there is no further debate. If you honestly believe calm reasoning is enough to bring children up to do good and avoid wrong, good luck to you. Don’t know how you’re going to train your dog, but never mind. You go your way and the rest of us will go ours, because most sane people recognise that saying, “Well done!” to a child to encourage the right behaviour, and, “I’m really not pleased with you!” to discourage the wrong, is necessary to reinforce the result we want. Information is not enough.

    Once this is established, the next question is what incentives and disincentives – or, to give them their politically incorrect names, what bribes and punishments – are most appropriate. And frankly, as long as they are both harmless and effective, I don’t think it matters. I potty-trained each of our children with a jar of olives (one for a wee, two for a poo). I would never have used sweets because they’re bad for them, but I wouldn’t criticise other parents for doing so if they want to. I think shouting is distressing and best avoided, and would always prefer something calm like the “naughty stair”.

    In this context, given that a punishment has to have a certain unpleasantness about it if it’s going to work, I can’t for the life of me see why we get in such a lather about a smack. I would sometimes give our children a choice. Once, when two of ours, aged four and five, had done something really naughty – they had broken up a door with a claw hammer – and yes, when quizzed, they knew perfectly well it was wrong – I knew they needed a pretty severe punishment. So I gave them the option of going to their room for an hour, or having a smack that would be over immediately – but I warned them it would be a pretty hard one. They briefly conferred and opted for the smack. Do we really want this to be illegal?

    And this raises a crucial distinction. Campaigners against smacking deliberately confuse the issue by calling it “hitting”. But hitting is very different. Hitting happens in the heat of the moment after a loss of control – indeed, some, like Penelope Leach, even say losing one’s rag is preferably to smacking “in cold blood”. This is a very wrong, even dangerous, idea to propound.

    Lashing out at a child in a temper, whether physically or verbally, is abuse. It is done for the benefit of the adult not the child, to relieve feelings rather than to discipline, and is far more likely to escalate into violence. It tends to be much more frightening, and is also likely to be humiliating. Smacking, properly used, is a controlled way of persuading your child that undesirable behaviour is not worth repeating. But if you prefer a “time out”, the loss of a treat, or ten minutes on the bottom step, that’s fine.

    The issue is not whether smacking is necessary to raise children. (Of course it isn’t.) The question is who is best qualified to decide. I believe it is parents, not politicians, who should rear their children – which is why the proposed change in the law is such a dreadful mistake. Not because we need to smack our children, but because we want them raised by the family, not the state.

    Some years ago, a father

    smacked his child several times in a dentist’s waiting room because she was getting hysterical about having her teeth attended to. He probably overstepped the mark (haven’t we all?) but at least, as a result, the dentist was able to fix the problem that had been keeping her awake every night with the pain. But alas, the father’s mistake was not hitting her too hard or too often (she’d recovered from that by the time she’d left the dentist’s chair), but doing it in public, where a social worker saw him and reported him. He was removed from the family for the next fortnight so the poor child had to spend Christmas without her daddy.

    I happened to speak to the mother a year or so later. Her husband had lost his teaching job; they’d had to sell their house, and they could no longer afford all the luxuries her daughter had loved – her piano lessons, her ballet classes. Her father upset her for a few minutes. The state has traumatised her, perhaps for life.


    23 November 2006 – Wanganui Chronicle – Borrows seeks change to smacking bill

    http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3710867&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

    Borrows seeks change to smacking bill

    23.11.2006
    By MARY BRYAN

    AN AMENDMENT drawn up by Wanganui National MP Chester Borrows will take the fight against Green MP Sue Bradford’s total ban on smacking bill to the next stage.

    “The amendment has been checked by the president of the Law Commission Sir Geoffrey Palmer (a former Labour Prime Minister). I’m hopeful it will be accepted by Parliament.

    Common sense has to be listened to,” Mr Borrows told the Chronicle.

    Parliament’s second reading of the bill is expected in mid to late February, at which stage the amendment will be put for debate.

    National’s spokesperson on Ms Bradford’s bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, Mr Borrows was seconded onto the Justice Select Committee.

    Section 59 allows “reasonable force” (to be used against a child for the purpose of correction), and he is concerned that the Select Committee’s replacement clause does not allow smacking.
    “The replacement allows for restraint such as holding a child, or picking them up, but not for smacking.

    “I want to see the bill limit the degree of force which can be used for correction, and worded so that parents who should be prosecuted can be. But the bill needs to give protection to good parents who smack their children occasionally.

    “The protection needs to be written into the law. The public have a right to know with certainty and clarity the law they have to abide by.”

    Sue Bradford, he said, believed the police would not charge people for smacking their kids, but “Police Association president Greg O’Connor has made it clear the police will have to pursue offences that are disclosed”.

    Also the bill, as amended, did not take into account the 10 or so surveys that had been done, all of which had found New Zealanders did not want parents criminalised for smacking children.

    “As well as the surveys, I have spoken to a number of children, all of whom have said they would rather have a quick smack for doing something wrong than lose privileges. “With a smack, straight away the matter is dealt with and immediately and done with.”

    Meanwhile, Plunket would rather have seen a full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act.

    “Plunket sees over 90 percent of babies born in New Zealand. As an organisation we called for repeal of Section 59 as a signal that violence against children will not be tolerated,” Kaye Crowther, New Zealand President, Royal New Zealand Plunket Society said.

    A Chronicle street poll yesterday found people were unanimous in their belief that smacks on the hands and legs as a way of keeping children safe were necessary at times.


    22 November 2006 – Family Integrity Press Release – Depriving Children of Clear Standards is Harmful

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0611/S00318.htm

    Depriving Children of Clear Standards is Harmful

    Wednesday, 22 November 2006, 9:57 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Press Release
    For Immediate Distribution

    Depriving Children of Clear Standards is Harmful

    The Select Committee’s proposed replacement of Section 59 specifically says reasonable force is to be totally prohibited for the purpose of correcting children. Bradford has at last revealed her true intentions: that parents should be prevented by law from correcting their own children.

    In spite of Bradford’s consistent ranting against the use of force, this new Section 59 she and the Committee have come up with says three times that reasonable force can be used by parents to prevent their children from doing something. However nowhere is force allowed to make the child do something he should, to behave in a way the parents insist upon.

    Reasonable force can be used to stop some (but not all) behaviour the parent may want to stop, but nothing in this law allows parents to use reasonable force to get the child to behave in a way the parent requires.

    Part of parenting is teaching right and proper behaviour and speech, teaching right from wrong, good from bad, wise from unwise. Will this law allow parents to enforce standards such as: making the child apologise to anyone or to address elders by using “Mr” or “Mrs” or “Dr”, etc? Will parents be legally able to cause their children to conform to their standards of dress, grooming, speech and behaviour if the standard being set by the child cannot be called offensive or disruptive, but just not up to the standard required by the parents? Can parents legally correct children’s bad grammar or slang? Can parents stop their children from visiting a friend if going over there is not obviously harmful, is not a criminal offense, is not offensive or disruptive, but the parent simply thinks the other household is a bad influence? This Bill is totally unworkable. It supposedly allows a parent to use reasonable force to cause a child to cease offensive behaviour. But is this not how one corrects a child? First stop the unacceptable and then coach in doing the acceptable? And yet correction is specifically forbidden by this Bill. It is a nonsense.

    This Bill is a direct attack on parents, parenting and parental authority. It wants to forbid parents from imposing their standards upon their own children by forbidding them to correct their own children. It is incredibly harmful to children morally, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and academically to present them with unclear and ambiguous standards or to be inconsistent in enforcing them. This Bill puts good parents into a quagmire of uncertainty as to how or even if they can legally impose and then enforce any standards at all upon their children without falling foul of the law.

    The sooner we dump this Bill the better.

    ENDS


    21 November 2006 – Ashburton Guardian: Editorial Comment

    http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=8322


    Editorial comment November 21
    By Grant Shimmin

    It’s an issue every parent or caregiver has been confronted with at some point, and most likely on numerous occasions. Whether or not to smack an errant child.
    And it seems that question is getter closer to being a decision about whether or not to commit a criminal offence.
    Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill, aimed at getting rid of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allows “reasonable force” in disciplining children, has moved a step closer to becoming law after Parliament’s justice committee recommended the bill pass with an amendment defining the circumstances in which reasonable physical force may be used.
    But it hardly seems that situations like pulling a child’s hand away from a hot stove or grabbing a child about to run into the road are the same circumstances where smacking may come into play.
    And essentially, this bill will tell us that if we smack, we’re committing an offence.
    This bill had the best of intentions. It was clearly aimed at reducing violence against children, a worthy cause if ever there was one.
    But as one pretty experienced parent said this morning, there’s no way this proposed change is going to stop situations where children are bashed to death by parents or family members. Believe it or not, that’s always been illegal. There are laws and punishments available for such offending.
    What this bill risks doing is putting hundreds of thousands of reasonable, loving parents under a cloud of uncertainty.
    According to one report today, the bill’s promoters, led by Bradford, are saying reasonable parents who give their kids a light smack don’t risk legal sanction.
    “The current police prosecution guidelines and the current practice of judges is not to prosecute people for trivial and minor offences,” she’s quoted as saying.
    It’s an assurance, but it’s certainly not a guarantee. The point is that it will still be an offence to smack and reasonable, loving parents who discipline their kids for the own good don’t want to be made to feel that they’re committing a criminal offence.
    By all means, punish child abusers to the fullest extent of the law, but leave the vast majority of good parents to raise their kids without a legal sword hanging over them.


    20 November 2006 – Family Integrity Press Release – Criminalisation of Parents Confirmed

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0611/S00306.htm


    At last MP Sue Bradford has been forced to admit her real objectives of her bill to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s report shows it was not to reduce violence but to hamstring parents.

    The committee has re-written Section 59 so that it lists the occasions when reasonable force can be used by parents with their children. This categorising of legitimate uses of force was something Bradford consistently railed against as totally unacceptable. But she has helped delineate and describe four situations. Three of those have to do with preventing behaviour that might lead to harm, or crime, or is offensive or disruptive. The fourth simply allows parents to use reasonable force for “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”

    But the re-write specifically and pointedly prohibits reasonable force to be used if the motivation is to correct.

    Parents are to be legally prohibited from correcting their own children! How revealing of Bradford’s purposes! The original Section 59 only allows the use of reasonable force for one reason: correction. Bradford’s new version of Section 59 only specifically prohibits the use of force for one reason: correction.

    Correcting children with force of any kind, however light, is specifically prohibited. Yet part of parenting is teaching right and proper behaviour and speech, teaching manners and etiquette, teaching grooming and modesty, teaching right from wrong, good from bad, wise from unwise. Reasonable force can be used to stop some but not all bad behaviour the parents may want to stop. But nothing in this law appears to allow parents to use force to get the child to behave in a way the parent may require or that culture, tradition or societal norms expect. This new Section 59 allows the use of reasonable force to stop some types of bad behaviour, but does not allow the use of force to enforce the performance or practise of any kind of good behaviour.

    The standard of public behaviour will obviously sink to the lowest level generally acceptable, since parents will not be legally allowed to force children to maintain higher standards. Disobedience and disrespect will blossom. Those who feed on such dysfunction can see a bonanza on the horizon: it was as if this legislation had the future welfare of counsellors, psychologists, lawyers and the exploding numbers of child and family advocacy and interventionist groups in mind.

    This Bill has become totally unworkable. It shows that the purpose has nothing at all to do with violence or excessive force against children, which things are already illegal. The purpose of this bill all along has been to repeal parental authority over their own children, to minimise and compromise a parent’s ability to correct, train or discipline his or her child to act, dress or speak to any standard imposed by the parent.

    Correction of children is to be illegal. This is absurd. It is insane.

    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity


    20 November 2006 – Family First Press Release – Parents Should Be Worried

    Family First Press Release – Select Committee ignores the facts on smacking; parents should be worried

    MEDIA RELEASE
    20 NOVEMBER 2006

    Select Committee ignores the facts on smacking, and parents should be worried

    The Justice and Electoral Committee’s announcement that the majority are supporting the Bill designed to remove the statutory defence for parents who use force against their children for the purpose of correction, should cause parents to shiver in their boots.

    “We have just heard about the right of a teenager to effectively ‘divorce’ their parent because they don’t like the family rules, a 12 year old being sneaked off to get contraceptives by their school, and now this Bill,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “Parents in NZ should be horrified by the way their authority and responsibilities are being undermined.”

    The majority view of the Select Committee has ignored a number of key issues:

    1. Child abuse is already illegal in New Zealand – Repealing s59 isn’t needed, because the law already says that child abusers have committed a crime. Since 1990, there have only been seven successful defences under s59 – that’s seven in 16 years!

    2. If s59 is repealed, good parents will be treated as criminals under the law – The police have confirmed, and has been confirmed by two Queen’s Counsels that smacking a child would be assault. They will have to investigate any complaint made against a parent for smacking or even removal to ‘time out’. This will immediately place a family under enormous pressure. The police have to enforce the law, regardless of what politicians say.

    3. Banning smacking will not stop child abuse – In 2003, a UNICEF report identified poverty, stress and family breakdown – along with drug and alcohol abuse – as the factors most closely and consistently associated with child abuse and neglect. Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking!

    4. Reasonable smacking does not damage children or teach them to be violent – A recent Otago University study found that children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all.

    “The Select Committee has chosen to ignore the 80% of NZ’ers who know the difference between a smack and child abuse, and want s59 retained,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The Politicians must support kiwi parents and reject repeal.”

    ENDS

    For more information contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP
    National Director
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
    email. bob@familyfirst.org.nz | www.familyfirst.org.nz
    P.O. Box 276-133, Manukau City, Auckland, New Zealand


    30 October 2006 – Victim decries sex link to discipline

    http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/Vol_64_Issue_No_42.html


    Printed on October 30, 2006
    Victim decries sex link to discipline

    A woman who was severely abused as a child is decrying MP Sue Bradford ‘s attempts to equate physical discipline with abuse and to demonise Christians who discipline their children.

    In a speech Ms Bradford made even stronger allegations, linking discipline and sexual abuse.

    She said: “Personally, I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out between consenting adults using safe sex practices. What I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline. Section 59 of the Crimes Act has been protecting the perpetrators of a vicious mix of sexual and physical abuse for generations.”

    Former Christchurch woman Glenyss Barker, who lately moved to Melbourne, says that as a child she was in a family that suffered horrific abuse from an alcoholic father.

    “I can now speak because both my parents are dead and it will not cause them any pain to do this. My mother was abused, as were all of my siblings. Being the youngest, I believe I probably got off more lightly but the memories are still there.

    “Because of this experience I am fully aware, as I was as a little girl, of the difference between ‘abuse ‘ and ‘discipline ‘. After the family broke up and the divorce, my mother did discipline us with smacks and I knew that this was not abuse, but justified because my actions had needed to be reprimanded.

    “All children need guidance and, at times, something stronger than a word to make them behave. Children with strong personalities will always try to push the boundaries but they need to know the adults are in charge and are to be obeyed.

    “As a teacher it was also apparent to me which children were loved and cared for, and I was always aware of the children who were not disciplined at home. They were often the ones wanting stricter guidelines in the classroom, and they responded very well to classroom structure and order.”

    Mrs Barker says repealing Section 59 of the Crimes Act will do nothing to correct abuse in New Zealand homes, but it will make loving parents fearful and prevent them from sensibly disciplining children so they grow up as mature, caring adults.

    “My children have reflected that they respect the discipline in our home and I am very proud of the young women they have grown into. We disciplined them when it was needed, but did not abuse them – they like me, even as children, recognised the difference.”

    Mrs Barker says to regard loving discipline or a smack as abuse shows that people do not have any idea of what abuse really is.

    “I do – it happened to me and I really am worried that Ms Bradford is seeking to remove the only help parents have to assert the authority needed to ensure children are brought up knowing their actions have consequences in life.”

    Mrs Barker was formerly secretary of the television viewers organisation VoTE (Viewers for Television Excellence).

    She says the deluge of extremely violent and sexual scenes daily on TV is a far better documented cause of the breakdown in homes than parental discipline. The instances of teenage murder and violence lately are ample examples of the effect copycat violence is having.

    “If Ms Bradford honestly wishes to reduce the amount of child abuse in homes she should start with the dreadful programmes that are screened during the times children are known to be up and watching TV,” she says.

  • 15 October 2006 – 14 November 2006


    14 November 2006 – Press Release — Bradford is in self-destruct mode

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0611/S00200.htm

    Bradford is in self-destruct mode

    Tuesday, 14 November 2006, 12:36 pm
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    Press Release
    For Immediate Distribution

    MP Sue Bradford is in self-destruct mode as she makes incriminating remarks in a form letter trying to justify why she voted to keep the lower legal age for purchasing alcohol:
    “Clearly, there are a wide variety of factors that impact on the harms caused by alcohol, that simply cannot be and will not be addressed by simply raising the purchasing age. . . . “I am not prepared to strip away the legal rights of a section of the community on the basis of research that is not definitive. Nor will I use the law to take away rights when there is no evidence that the law will be effective.”

    If you transpose these statements into the context of the debate over the repeal of section 59, you will see that Ms Bradford is most definitely “prepared to strip away the legal rights of” all parents and to do so “on the basis of research that is not definitive,” (in fact, even in the face of good research by Dr Jane Millichamp of Otago University and only recently released, to the contrary).

    She is also quite willing to “use the law to take away rights when there is no evidence the law will be effective” in reducing the prevalence of child abuse.

    She is happy “simply” to ban reasonable force in the correction of children, rather than address the “wide variety of” real and observable “factors” that lead to child abuse and family violence, namely, alcohol and substance abuse; family breakdown (which means many children grow up in homes where one of their natural parents, usually the father, is replaced by a stranger); graphic violence on the TV, computer, and cinema screens, and in video games; and bullying in public schools. These factors are crying out to be addressed, but Sue Bradford’s simplistic answer is: ban all use of reasonable force from normal parenting, ie. strip away the legal rights and protection of all parents! Criminalise the lot, she says. It seems in her book parenting is not a complex issue and a blanket criminalisation of “reasonable force” is not simplistic. Yeah. Right.

    ENDS


    25 October 2006 – EPOCH are making some rather empty claims

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00260.htm

    Wednesday, 25 October 2006, 10:19 am
    Press Release: Family Integrity

    25 October 2006

    EPOCH are making some rather empty claims.

    They say there are 60 so-called child and family organisations who are informed when they call for repeal of Section 59. These organisations generally have four things working against them being properly informed: One, they view things from a detached academic and/or institutional view, while those who are at the coalface….parents….have consistently expressed their desire by voting at around 80% in poll after poll to retain Section 59. Two, they tend to view parents and their children in simplistic, black and white, adversarial caricatures wherein parents are too busy and stressed to understand their children properly and can barely cope and need these children’s groups to intervene. That is, they see parents as the selfish villains who don’t have their own children’s best interests at heart, and they see themselves as the selfless heroes who have only the child’s best interests at heart. Three, they are inordinately paternalistic, telling the vast majority of parents, who they know disagree with their views, how to raise their children. Four, since they know they are vastly outnumbered by ordinary New Zealanders, they want the state to coerce everyone else to adopt their minority views, and then have the audacity to suggest this anti-democratic coercion shows “leadership” by politicians. This makes one suspect they are closet Marxists.

    They make the incredulous statement that the purpose of changing the law is education rather than prosecution. This is simply daft. The law does educate, yes, but it only does so by punishing law-breakers. As long as some parents are prosecuted for using reasonable force to correct, train and discipline their children, other parents will learn either to avoid using reasonable force to correct, train and discipline their children, leaving us with a nation full of undisciplined children, or to avoid being noticed by going underground. Isn’t it interesting how in these enlightened times, homosexuality and prostitution are no longer criminalized and driven underground, but these pro-repeal of Section 59 groups are keen to criminalise parents and drive them underground?

    They expect MPs and others to simply accept their poorly disguised propaganda statement that “Physical discipline does not show children how to behave well.” Any parent worth his salt knows that good examples show children how to behave well, that consistent verbal instructions tell children how to behave well, and that physical discipline makes children behave well until such time as they have internalised self-discipline and personal habits of behaving well. It is as if the repeal lobby simply do not understand this basic concept of parenting children. Countless generations of people from all manner of religious, cultural, ethnic, social, educational and economic backgrounds have testified over time and continue to testify today that physical discipline is essential to the cultivation of good behaviour.

    The efforts of EPOCH and other such groups are so paternalistic and ideologically driven that they will criminalise good parents and drive them underground.

    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity


    15 October 2006 – Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson – Smacking children is not harmful

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00150.htm

    Smacking children is not harmful

    Sunday, 15 October 2006, 3:09 pm

    Press Release: Ruby Harrold-Claesson

    Smacking children is not harmful
    Ruby Harrold-Claesson, lawyer

    I fully agree with the study presented according to which “Smacking children [is] not so harmful”. In this day and age when we have to study everything from a scientific point of view, common sense, which was the guideline for former generations, has been thrown out the window!

    Most sensible people must be aware of the fact that no matter how much we love our children, there occurs sometimes in the most harmonious of families occasions when parents must use reasonable force against their children. That has nothing to do with violence. Smacking a 16-yr old who has thrown an axe at a younger sibling, (Case 14 in my submission to the Select Committee), is not violence. Smacking a 15-yr old who has pushed her mother so she fell down the stairs because she was not given a tape-recorder, (Case 16 in my submission), is not child abuse. These two cases are exact scenarios from my legal experience. The 16 and 15 year olds were legally responsible but they were not prosecuted for their terrible acts, but the parents were prosecuted for “child abuse”.

    Former generations, and most of the parents in the world, can differentiate between smacking and child abuse. Smacking is used by responsible parents, when words and admonitions are not enough to make the child cease and desist from an unacceptable behaviour. That has nothing to do with violence or child abuse.

    On October 15, 2004 in the wake of the acquittal of the stepfather in Uddevalla, (a small town in southern Sweden), who had smacked his 15 yr old step-daughter who had spat in his face (Case 29 in my submission), the evening newspaper, Aftonbladet, interviewed five persons. They all said it was wrong to smack children.

    See http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,547607,00.html

    The following day I was interviewed on the Morning Program on TV and I congratulated the court on a verdict based on common sense. The same day Aftonbladet published an article with interviews with a well-known record producer, Bert Karlsson, and me. Bert Karlsson said: “I would have hit even harder”.

    See http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,547945,00.html

    The following Tuesday night (19/10) I was invited to participate in a panel debate on the Television program “Debate” with Lennart Persson. The panel was made up of six persons: three for smacking and three against. On my team I had Rune Torwald, one of the six MP’s who had voted against the anti-smacking law and a criminologist. On the other team were the Children’s ombudsman, a psychologist from Save the Children and a European MP. The anti-smackers claimed that it was damaging for defenceless children to be smacked. However, the issue at hand was the case with the 15-year old girl. A 15-year old is not a defenceless child. At age 15 a youngster is punishable by law and has also attained the legal age of consent to sexual relations.

    Towards the end of the program Lennart Persson asked the psychologist from Save the Children if all former generations of children – including us adults born before the anti-smacking law was passed – were damaged. The psychologist from Save the Children hesitated then he answered “No”. That’s the only answer he could give because I’m sure that he too was smacked as a child. So, if he had replied “yes” then he would be stating that he himself was traumatised.

    Several leading authorities on child rearing have a more common sense attitude towards child smacking. For example, Dr. Laura Schlessinger states in the article “Is parental authority important? Dr. Laura weighs in on ‘sparing the rod’”, published on WorldNetDaily on February 10, 2001, the following:
    “(…) the necessity for the adults to establish themselves as authority figures is, in my opinion, the single most important factor in child rearing.”
    The American psychoanalyst, Robert Waelder, wrote in his book “Basic theory of Psychoanalysis”, I quote:
    “… a psychoanalytic approach to upbringing does not mean that children should get what they desire when they desire something; instead it demands an attempt to find a suitable balance between satisfaction and disappointment in every situation … we have to find the optimal combination of two equally important but partly opposite ingredients for a healthy development, namely, love and discipline; to love without spoiling and to discipline without injuring.”

    In Sweden we have had a blanket prohibition against smacking children since 1979. Since then hundreds, maybe thousands, of parents have been prosecuted for “child abuse” and their children have been taken into compulsory care and placed in foster homes – where in fact they have been severely abused mentally, physically and even sexually.

    The greatest harm that is being done to children in Sweden today is not caused by parents who give an occasional smacking, but by unnecessary state intervention into their private and family lives. Since the beginning of the 1970s, parents have been indoctrinated in the modern philosophy that children should have free upbringing. Free upbringing came to mean “freedom from upbringing”. The state agencies took over and parents have been forced to abdicate from their positions of authority for their children – on pain of prison and the loss of their children to the state.

    Discipline became a despised word – a word that should not be used by parents in child rearing and neither by teachers in the schools. Many leading persons in Sweden have reacted to the fact that Swedish children are wild and lacking in discipline.

    In an article “Youngsters must meet a firm reaction”, published in the Swedish Daily on September 5, 1993, former Justice Minister, Mrs Gun Hellsvik, and former School Minister, now Justice Minister, Mrs Beatrice Ask, asserted that Sweden needs a new family policy. They wrote inter alia:
    “In recent years, there is a dawning societal debate on moral and ethical questions. (…) We are beginning to see the results of the general lack of principles that the social democrats promoted as a political goal during the sixties and seventies. It was their vision of family, school and teaching and also about the legal system in general. There are certain basic ideas that we believe most people in our country agree with in principle: Adults have a responsibility to teach the youth what is right and wrong. Parents have a particular responsibility towards their children. … Young persons who break rules must learn to take the consequences and expect to meet a firm reaction. The State shall in every respect facilitate parents and among others teachers to fulfil their educational tasks.” (My italics)

    “Aversion towards the family
    Among the social-democrats since the beginning of the sixties, there has been an unexplainable aversion towards the family and a reluctance to allow the schools to fulfil their important roll as a conveyor of norms. Parents were told that they “snuffed the development of their children. They were informed in no uncertain terms that their children would fare better if they were taken care of by specially trained staff at public institutions.
    Parents were deemed to be lacking in knowledge and rather dangerous for their children… (…)
    In the end it is necessary that children or adolescents who break prescribed rules must meet a firm reaction both at home and at school. Because of this there are a number of changes that are necessary in our country.
    Therefore, we need a new family policy that will show that the responsibility for the supervision and upbringing of the children rests on the parents… (…)
    It is high time to let parents and the teaching staff take responsibility for the youth in our society. If we fail to do that we will fail our children!”

    On August 16, 2003 the Swedish columnist, Linda Skugge wrote:

    “We are bringing up a generation of monsters”

    and on July 4, 2005, the journalist Roger Lord wrote the article:

    “The children are embarrassing Sweden”.

    Despite the negative Swedish experiences, certain politicians in other countries are trying to enforce similar legislation.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted in an article published in Aftonbladet on October 27, 1996, saying that “smacking is good for children.” The article also informs that Tony Blair has admitted smacking his children, and that he deems it necessary sometimes.

    And, on October 9, 2006, USA Today published the article “CEOs Often Spanked as Kids”, asserting that smacking is one thing they overwhelmingly have in common.

    There is no conclusive evidence that smacking is harmful to children. The burden of proof must lay on those who propose a change in the existing system.

  • News Media Reports – 14 June 2004 – 09 October 2006

    09 October 2006 – Family Integrity Press Release

    /members/846699/uploaded/C_with_C_of_Police.pdf
    Repeal of Section 59 will cause all parents, grandparents and caregivers
    to become criminals by definition, whether they are ever charged or not,
    should they use any force whatsoever to correct, train or discipline
    children.

    Both Police Commissioner Robinson and Police Commissioner Broad have
    confirmed in writing [see attachment] that should Section 59 ever go,
    parents would no longer be authorised to use reasonable force by way of
    correction. Traditional parenting activity would join robbery and
    speeding as criminal activity whether one is caught, charged or not.
    Every parent, grandparent and caregiver in the land who used any force,
    however light, or even the threat of force would automatically fall foul
    of the definition of assault in Section 2 of the Crimes Act and be
    constantly exposed to a charge of criminal assault under Section 194(a)
    of the Crimes Act, worth as much as two years in jail.

    Despite Bradford’s disingenuous protests that this is not her intention,
    it is precisely what she outlines in the Bill’s Explanatory Note. She
    even says common law precedent should not be called upon to justify
    parental use of such force: it must always be regarded as outside the
    protection of the law.

    Bradford’s Bill has from the beginning stated her desire to reduce all
    parental authority to near zero. It does nothing to reduce violence; it
    will instead reduce overall discipline and that will increase violence
    across the board. This Bill must be decisively dumped.

    Craig Smith
    National Director
    Family Integrity

    (more…)