Family Integrity

Category: Section 59 – The Bill

  • Referendum/Section 59 – The way forward.

    The way forward.

    After 27 months of opinion poll after opinion poll recording an average 80% disapproval of the anti-smacking law, the people of New Zealand have spoken loud and clear to their House of Representatives. By an overwhelming majority they have said they do not want parents criminalised for smacking their children when this is done in the context of good care and parenting.

    There are a couple of options that can achieve this in law. Act MP John Boscawen’s bill that is based on National MP Chester Borrows earlier amendment, will achieve the decriminalisation of a light smack with an open hand. However it is not my preferred option for a couple of reasons.

    If proper parliamentary process were to be followed, any new bill like this would need to be referred to a select committee to hear public submissions because of new wording that would be introduced into the law such as the definition of a smack.

    Quite frankly I think we have had enough debate about this issue already and this could be a further waste of time and resources. Sue Bradford’s ill-conceived and unpopular law change has cost an enormous amount of resources and achieved nothing positive for the nation as a whole.

    Therefore I can understand to some extent why the Prime Minister is reluctant to re-open the debate within parliament when there are many important issues facing the nation in this difficult economic recession.

    I have always felt that the Borrows type amendment still interfered too much in the way parents might correct their children. After all, a different approach is needed with a two-year-old toddler from that needed with a defiant and rebellious ten year old.

    I think the best response to the majority ‘no vote’ in the referendum is for the Prime Minister to call Parliament to one session of urgency to pass an amendment to the new sec 59 of the Crimes Act that deletes 59(2) & (3).

    Supporters of the amended sec 59 passed by parliament on May 16 2007 often claimed that you could smack a child lawfully if they were about to put their hand in the fire for example as it was permitted under 59(1).

    Sec 59. 1. Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

    (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
    (b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
    (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

    The problem was that subclause 2 says;

    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
    And then subsection 3 says

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

    If Subsections 2 & 3 were deleted then the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders expressed in the referendum would be carried out, and the use of reasonable force for correction could be covered under 59(1)(d).

    Since the use of reasonable force for the purpose of correction would no longer specifically be an offence, 59 (4) could be deleted.

    However if there were concerns about the use of correction under 59(1)(d) being clearly covered, 59(4) could be amended as follows.

    4. To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child involving the use of reasonable force for correction as part of performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting, where it is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

    Since these amendments have already been part of a lengthy select committee submission process, not to mention widespread public discussion, parliament would be justified in making such changes without referral to the public via submissions to a select committee since the public view has now been clearly expressed through the referendum.

    Ends

    Larry Baldock

    21 Aug 2009

  • Key says no to changing smacking law

    Key says no to changing smacking law

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776861/Key-says-no-to-changing-smacking-law

    By TOM FITZSIMONS, COLIN ESPINER and CLIO FRANCIS – The Dominion Post

    Smacking referendum results by electorates

    Pro-smacking campaigners are calling on the Government to fast-track a law change to allow parents to smack their children, after a thumping referendum victory.

    But Prime Minister John Key says he will not change the law, and the law’s original sponsor, Green MP Sue Bradford, says the question was so flawed the result is meaningless.

    Children’s Commissioner John Angus also joined the chorus of people saying the law should remain, as “it is good for children”.

    The referendum, which cost $8.9 million and drew a voter turnout larger than most local body elections, asked: Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    In preliminary results issued last night, 87.6 per cent of those who voted answered No, and 11.81 per cent said Yes.

    More than 1,622,000 people or 54 per cent of enrolled voters voted.

    Mr Key said he “took the message seriously” and would take a series of proposals to the Cabinet on Monday.

    The proposals stopped short of a law change, but he would not say whether he was planning to give new instructions to police. “It is my belief that the law is working and that at this point we don’t need to change the law,” he said.

    “I don’t think a law change is necessary. There are other changes that fall short of changing the law that I think can be introduced.”

    Mr Key has said he smacked his two children “very lightly and in moderation” when they were younger.

    Kiwi Party leader and poll campaigner Larry Baldock said the turnout showed how strongly people felt about the issue, and sent a firm message to Mr Key: “They want the authority back in the home and he is foolish to suggest this law is working.”

    Mr Baldock, a former MP, said the Government should bypass the select committee process and move straight to a vote in Parliament. References in the Crimes Act that barred parents from using force “for the purpose of correction” should be deleted, he said.

    He denied the poll question was biased and confusing. The law had made people angry. “Every parent has been disempowered. They’ve got children coming home and saying, `You can’t touch me’.”

    Ms Bradford said she had expected a majority “No” vote. She believed some people were so confused by the question they accidentally voted the wrong way. “Because the question is so flawed, the result is flawed. It’s not a clear indicator to the Government of what it should do, if anything.”

    Other voters had told her they had scrawled abusive comments on their ballots instead of answering the question, which could have spoiled their votes, she said.

    She accepted some people were still uncomfortable with the law, but said it should stand because “it’s a law about protecting our most vulnerable citizens”.

    Sheryl Savill, who instigated the referendum, felt “overwhelmed” by the result. “I am so pleased that such a large number of people have shown their support for this issue.”

    Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden said no data was kept about how many ballots had been written on or otherwise spoiled. But 9696 votes were recorded as “informal” because the voter’s intention could not be understood.

    Police are due to release their final report into how the law has affected their operations early next week. In reports so far, they have said its impact has been minimal.

    Turnout dwarfed the only previous citizen-initiated referendum decided by mail a 1995 question about firefighter numbers that only 26.96 per cent of voters responded to. Turnout at last year’s local body elections was about 41 per cent.

  • Massive NO to Anti-Smacking Law Politicians Must Listen

    87.6%    87.6%

    87.6%

    Family First Media Release Friday 21 August

    Massive NO

    to Anti-Smacking Law

    Politicians Must Listen

    1. Amend Law
    2. Establish Non-Political Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse


    Family First NZ is welcoming the result of the anti-smacking Referendum and says that it is now time for the politicians to respect the people they represent and amend the anti-smacking law.

    “87.6% of voters have called for a law change by voting NO in the referendum. The National government should move immediately to amend the law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “John Key cannot ignore this result. To put 87.6% in perspective, at the general election last year 45% voted for National, 34% voted for Labour and 6.7% voted for the Greens. 87.6% is more than these three combined.”

    “The attempt by politicians to dismiss the Referendum as ‘ambiguous’ and irrelevant has also been rebuked by the voters. A 54% response rate in the Referendum is still significant especially when compared to just 47% voting in the recent Mt Albert by-election, an average of just over 40% voting in the recent local body elections for their mayors and city councils, and a 55% response rate which changed our whole voting system to MMP.”

    “The attack on the referendum seems to have rarked up voters because they feel like it was more of the previous ‘we the politicians know better than you and we’re not listening’ attitude. NZ’ers hoped that we had moved on from that approach.”

    Family First is calling on the government to immediately amend the anti-smacking law under urgency so that good parents are not treated as breaking the law for light smacking, and then to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse which will identify and target the real causes.

    “The 87.6% who voted NO are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children. They are simply kiwis who want to tackle the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties.”

    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues and has had no effect on our child abuse rates. It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    ENDS

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Anti-smacking referendum: No vote wins

    Anti-smacking referendum: No vote wins

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2776567/Anti-smacking-referendum-No-vote-wins

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Last updated 20:03 21/08/2009

    New Zealanders have overwhelmingly voted for the anti-smacking law to be canned.

    A total of 1,622,150 votes were cast with 87.6 percent in favour of repealing the controversial new law.

    The Chief Electoral Office said it would now complete checks and count voting papers still to be received, before releasing the final result.

    The preliminary results from the $9 million citizens-initiated referendum which asked: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” have just been released.

    Both sides of the campaign had earlier admitted this was the more likely result.

    Labour deputy leader Annette King said the referendum had allowed everyone to have their say.

    “It’s now up to the Government to determine what the next steps are. Labour is yet to see evidence that the current Act needs to be changed. It is going to be reviewed at the end of the year and we will wait to see the outcome of that.”

    The referendum followed a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford, which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    Those leading the “Vote No” campaign had argued the law had achieved nothing and was not targeting the real causes of child abuse in New Zealand.

    The “Vote Yes” advocates wanted the law to be kept, saying fears that innocent parents would be criminalised had not eventuated and that children deserved the same protection against physical harm as adults.

    Both Prime Minister John Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have indicated they were comfortable with the law and the referendum would not necessarily change that.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

  • Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2773068/Anti-smacking-side-concede-loss-likely

    Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Larry Baldock

    HOT ISSUE: Larry Baldock with boxes of petitions in 2008. The petition, circulated nationwide, led to the referendum.

    Campaigners on both sides of the smacking debate believe a referendum result due out tonight will be a victory for those who opposed a controversial 2007 law change.

    We will bring you results of the referendum as soon as they are available this evening.

    Preliminary results from the controversial $9 million citizens-initiated poll are due at 8.30pm this evening  although they are not binding, and the government has not signalled any intention to act on the result.

    Those behind the referendum, which asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” believe the majority of respondents will have voted no. As of last Friday, 1,330,900 votes had been cast.

    “I’ve been working on this for 32 months and to get the final result it will be great,” Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who initiated the referendum, said.

    “I think it will definitely be a majority no vote.”

    The referendum follows a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

    Mr Baldock said the 2007 Act should be repealed, and is so confident the majority of Kiwis feels the same that he has already organised a party at an Auckland motel for supporters, where they will gather to await the result.

    Vote Yes spokeswoman and former NZ First MP Deborah Morris-Travers said the group that opposes smacking did not expect the vote to go their way.

    “We’ve always expected that the majority vote would be a No vote because, of course, thats how the question is put. It’s a loaded question.”

    However, she said the campaign had allowed them to (miss-educate)  educate people about the law and address (spread) some of the misinformation that surrounded it.

    She pointed to the latest police statistics which, she said, proved concerns in the community that large numbers of parents would be criminalised for smacking were unfounded.

    (No any good family that comes before the Police and CYFs is unnecessary and traumatic for the family)

    The figures from the latest six-month review showed police attended 279 child assault events in the six-month review period between last October and April.

    Of those events, 39 involved “minor acts of physical discipline”, with four resulting in prosecutions. Eight of those involved smacking.

    During the previous review period, police attended 258 child assault events of which 49 were “minor acts of physical discipline” and nine involved smacking.

    Police said there had been little impact on their workloads since the law was enacted.

    “It’s hardly thousands and thousands of parents are being criminalised because they are absolutely not,” Ms Morris-Travers said

    (One good family criminalised is too many – especially if it is your family)

    She said she had detected a sea change in people’s attitudes and New Zealanders needed to give the law a chance.

    “They can have confidence in [the law] and they can have confidence in the way the police are administering the law,” she said.

    The No campaigners would be making recommendations on how the law should be changed and hoped Prime Minister John Key would act quickly, Mr Baldock said.

    Mr Baldock said little had been gained from the legislation so far.

    “If you look at all the time and money and, you know, angst thats been expended on this for the past three or four years and for what gain?” he said.

    However, both Mr Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have said they are comfortable with the legislation as it stands and a No vote would not change that.

  • Children’s rights in the society

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson sent us this translated article:

    http://www.nkmr.org/english/childrens_rights_in_the_society.htm

    Children’s rights in the

    society

    By Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    This year, marks the thirtieth year since Sweden became the first in the world to prohibit child-smacking. The law has attracted much attention internationally and Sweden is considered in large parts of the world as a pioneer country in terms of children’s rights. Bris (Children’s Rights in the Society) notes the anniversary with a campaign where they ask the question “What has actually happened?” It is a sensible question, because now is the time to look back on these thirty years and see what has been achieved. How much is there behind all Sweden’s fine words about the rights of the children?

    Five years before the anti-smacking law was passed the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament) passed another controversial law: that of free abortion. Since 1974, this decision led to over 1 million children being killed in our country. The consequences of the two laws in combination are absurd. In Sweden, a parent is prosecuted and tried in court for a slap in the face. The same parents can be – completely within boundaries of the law – to poison, maim and kill their children if they are younger than 18 weeks old. Smacking a child can lead to police action, whereas that same child could have had its head crushed by an adult at an earlier stage of its development – quite legally. The situation is bizarre and profoundly tragic. Save the Children, Bris and other organizations that claim to protect children’s rights – as far as I know – do not lift a finger to save the unborn children.

    Where is the logic? I who am approximately contemporary with these laws, I am experiencing great pain over the disaster that contempt for the smallest children’s rights has meant for Sweden. The Sweden that we from the late seventies have grown up in has been deprived of one million citizens. People who would have lived among us as our family members, neighbours, schoolmates, colleagues, friends and spouses. People who would have helped to build this country and take care of the older generation. People who are irreplaceable and unique.

    Can all you experts, ideologues and opinion leaders – especially those from the forties – who contributed to the passing of these two laws give me an explanation?

    What were you really thinking?

    Annette Westöö, born 1977, is a MA in Religious Knowledge and she is a teacher for seven years. She is the vice president of the pro-life organisation “Human Rights for the Unborn” and she is an active member of the Swedish Church. Annette Westöö has for many years been an active protector of children’s and their families’ rights. During the past years she has written several debate articles and opinion pieces about the rights of the unborn child.

    The Swedish version of this article has been sent to several Swedish newspapers, but so far its fate is unknown. It is published here with the kind consent of the author.

    Destroying the Family: Swedish style

    A family flees from the Welfare State

    Back to Articles

    Back to Main

    Original Article:

    Barnens rätt i samhället

    Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    I år är det trettio år sedan Sverige blev först ut i världen med att förbjuda barnaga. Lagen har väckt stor uppmärksamhet internationellt och Sverige betraktas i stora delar av världen som ett föregångsland när det gäller barns rättigheter. Bris uppmärksammar jubileet i en kampanj där man ställer frågan ”Vad har egentligen hänt?”. Det är en klok fråga, för nu är det tid att blicka bakåt på dessa trettio år och se vad som åstadkommits. Hur mycket ligger det egentligen bakom Sveriges alla vackra ord om barnens rätt?

    Fem år före anti-agalagens tillkomst stiftade Sveriges riksdag en annan kontroversiell lag: den om fri abort. Sedan 1974 har detta beslut lett till över en miljon barns död i vårt land. Följderna av de båda lagarna i kombination är absurda. I Sverige kan en förälder åtalas och dömas i domstol för en örfil. Samma förälder kan – helt inom lagens råmärken – låta förgifta, lemlästa och döda sitt barn om det är yngre än 18 veckor. En dask riktad mot ett barn kan leda till polisingripanden, medan detta barn kunde ha fått sitt huvud krossat av en vuxen i ett tidigare stadium av sin utveckling –  helt lagligt. Situationen är bisarr och bottenlöst tragisk. Rädda barnen, Bris och andra organisationer som säger sig värna om barns rättigheter har vad jag vet inte lyft ett finger för att rädda de ofödda barnen. Var finns logiken?

    Jag, som är ungefär jämnårig med dessa lagar, upplever stor smärta över den katastrof som föraktet för de minsta barnens rättigheter har inneburit för Sverige. Det Sverige som vi sena sjuttiotalister har vuxit upp i saknar en miljon medborgare. Människor som skulle ha levt ibland oss som våra familjemedlemmar, grannar, skolkamrater, kollegor, vänner och makar. Människor som skulle ha hjälpt till att bygga det här landet och ta hand om den äldre generationen. Människor som är oersättliga och unika.

    Kan alla ni experter, ideologer och opinionsbildare – förmodligen främst fyrtiotalister – som var med och drev fram dessa båda lagar ge mig en förklaring?

    Hur tänkte ni, egentligen?

  • CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.

    FROM Big News blog – read the comments on Big News as well:

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html

    CYF boss apologies after parents go public – not for wrongdoing, but because those his department hassled were “upset”.

    A parent tells how he smacked his child

    “I grabbed hold of her ankle and smacked her bottom” Two of his fingers went above the line of her belt, leaving red marks on her back.The smack worked. She stopped kicking and was soon apologetic.But the mental health service was about to give her a full medical examination. Lisa told a nurse about the red marks and the smack.A few days later, at 3pm on a Friday, CYFS staff rang. They had received a claim of abuse and they wanted the children out of the house while they investigated.

    The question is, was CYFS right in doing that. How did it know the red marks were caused by a smack?

    It didn’t.

    The social worker described the situation at the time as “critical”. Family First has this case up on its website – [‘case 5] noting that the family were interviewed by the police for for five hours. The kids were removed, even though she was told that the marks were caused by the child falling on a vaccuum cleaner. On the Monday, CYFS spoke to the older daughter at school to find out how abusive her parents were and left her in tears. One wondered why they didn’t speak to her on the Friday before she was told to get alternative accomodation.

    But it took involvement from the media to get an apology from CYFS boses. CYFS boss Ray Smith said CYFS could have done a better job of talking through other options”. Like hell they could have. He didn’t say what those other options might entail.

    “I want to stress that removing children from a home is a last resort and that is not what happened in this case… I am sorry that the girls were upset and unsettled by our involvement with their family. I acknowledge that, in this case, we could have given [the parents] better advice on how to explain to their children what was happening.” He said the parents were “good parents”, but the agency had been “asked to get involved simply to see whether a family that appeared to be struggling needed our help”.

    What a load of crap. That is an outright lie. The parent said that the agency got involved not to offer help but to investigate the allegation of abuse and kick the children out as a first resort after a complaint, thus interfering with the lives of good Kiwi parents. Then he has the audacity to say in a column today that:

    This does not mean that CYFS is interfering in the lives of good Kiwi parents.

    But he has admitted CYFS did just that in the above case. The parents had no option but to accede to CYFS demands.

    Since when is CYFS there to “help” parents on how to “explain what was happening” when they don’t even listen to explanations as to what did happen?

    Go to big News to read the comments and to make a comment:

    http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/07/cyf-boss-apologies-after-parents-go.html

  • DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=122aa520f2a4cb0d&mt=application%2Fpdf

    DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59
    KEAH? – HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WHEN GOOD BECAME BAD!
    By Stephen Dol NZCBC, Research Analyst.
    stephen.dol@thinkingezy.co.nz
    Michael Jackson sung the song “Bad”, which really meant “Good”. That’s confusing and so is the opposition to the referendum. To clarify this it is important to highlight two separate issues in the debate – 1) dysfunctional violent abuse and 2) the purpose of authority within a family to govern and when necessary, enforce. The confusion has been created by the violent abuse lobby who have merged the assumption that physical discipline to correct boundary and  behaviour encroachments is dysfunctional violent abuse, which it is not.
    The question is…
    Let’s use the dictionary definition for abuse i.e. “to treat badly”. The question then becomes “Is physical discipline bad treatment of a child”. To answer this we need to assess the outcome, i.e. how well will a child who is loved and  disciplined transition into adulthood as a responsible balanced citizen? and what is the effect of a smack on this transition? The outcome shows the violent abuse theory to be out of kilter with reality, regarding boundaries and behaviour development, in caring homes. Why? Because till now, too many kids coming from these homes are succeeding in life. To spurn the collective wisdom and observations of hundreds of generations of families is to say that they got it wrong. This is crazy talk.
    The ugly picture
    What constitutes abuse, are cases such as Nia Glassie, the Kahui twins and similar reports. There is no question about these delinquent, evil and wicked cruelties and they must be dealt with. But this is not what the authority to govern in a family is about and the examples given are tactical manipulation because they muddy relatively clear waters.
    Our beloved schools
    What ever the view you take, the school system is the best recent example of what happens when the authority to govern is removed from the governing body. This happened in the 1980’s and almost 30 years later we are clearly seeing the effect of that change. The DomPost (24 June 2009) reported in the article “Mother punches school head”, that there were 6995 violent incidents this last year by students in schools, of which 815 were inflicted on teachers, (part of the governing body). On top of this there is no account for the daily foul gestures, verbal, manipulative, behavioural and psychological abuses. The report went on to say, “…fortunately these events are relatively  infrequent”. I don’t know about you, but 41 acts of violence per school day (5 directed at teachers) is not infrequent. The mechanisms for dealing with it are toothless (ask your teenage college kids or other students, I did. They think it is a joke). In today’s pop culture, violence in schools seems to be considered normal and par for the course of being a teacher. The estimated cost of this abuse to the tax payer, is $6.2m per year in ACC claims and medical costs (this does not account for expenses associated with the violence such as lost teaching time, counselling and time wasted dealing with the problem or the families who are unable to control their kids). This rouses no reaction, disgust or shame from the “yes” vote referendum campaigners, yet we are asked to shoulder this burden, every year without complaint. Is this right?
    A parking lot at home
    Worse than this, the school experience has been permanently embed in law with regard to family governance and that is discouraging and outrageous. We can expect in due course that the school experience will park itself in our homes, as the tweenies, twitters and tweeties enjoy the protection of the enforcement arm of the law to freely in some cases, turn their violence on their parents. In others to roam unrestrained in their anti social behaviours. Why? Because central government does not appreciate the effect of what has happened as a result of usurping the support the families need for authority in order to govern and enforce. Parents have a responsibility at times to enforce good behaviour in and outside their homes. The government would never dream of taking away such authority from the police and the far stronger measures of enforcement, such as pepper spray, handcuffs, tasers, riot gear, the AOS, etc. That is the real world we live in, but at the back of my head I hear the shout about alternative discipline advice. The problem is, on its own, it is not working at school and it isn’t working at home.
    The death that ended the war
    Violent abuse is a real issue. The attempt to address it however, is directed at the wrong cause. It is a social issue that has gained momentum on the back of the Culture Wars of the 1960’s & 70’s.  The DomPost (02 June 2009) reported in the article “A death (Michael Jackson) that ended the great war”, that it is now considered a war won by popular culture and its associated values.  What is popular culture? – among many other things it is: “I disregard authority; I have the rights; don’t restrain me in any way whatsoever; promises are for breaking; commitment is a big word;
    and what defines a family anyway? ”What it ought to be is: “Respect for order by respecting authority; acknowledging my responsibilities; restraining my base desires for the good of the community; making honourable commitments; action not intent; and reinforcing family structure”. The drinking age debate and the associated property, violence and sex crimes (reported DomPost 13 July 2009, “Dark side – Girls night out”) is just one of many examples of the cultural confusions we have inherited from this “victory”. The “safe everything” message is another.
    The cultural abuse instrument
    So, what about the abuse? The Cultural Revolution has become the abusive instrument (bad treatment of others) because of what it stands for and what it promotes, what it sows and what it then reaps – and that issue is not being accosted. On this basis (yes even in the absence of smacking), the issue that is trying to be addressed (abuse) is self defeated by pop cultures new moral baseline and that will go on unabated until we stop and take stock of what has happened. I suspect it will be with us for some time to come – till society can bear it no more.
    “Do as I say not as I do”
    As for the detractors of the referendum, there isn’t much to say really except, it is not enough to, “Do as I say and not as I do”. Pop culture will turn a blind eye to behaviours regarding leadership and consistency. Bill Clinton is the classic pop culture politician who demonstrated his cock up and avoidance through technicalities in his embarrassing string of public denials. Such world views make it necessary to adhere to the “Do as I say” adage. But true public leaders, in all facets of life must lead by example. Too many bear the opposite hallmark, and so they credibly can’t. By the next election numerous will have fallen – it has already begun. Not getting caught doesn’t make the erosion any less cancerous.
    Muted criticism and deflating support
    Finally John Key responded to the referendum question, leading up to the last election, by saying and I quote, “That National’s view on S59 was clear but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told. Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders have a say on the matter”. The question now is, has John Key been poisoned by the same political wine and become drunk too, with that power? He stood shoulder to shoulder with the detractors, to mute the descent and deliberately deflating the support for the referendum by saying “We don’t plan to change anything anyway”. How discouraging for confidence in the democratic process of this country. The recent folic acid in bread reports demonstrates how stupefied and impotent central government has become. The government can’t even resist the demands of another country. They have been hijacked by cretins who are more interested in bureaucratic participation in the meddling of foreign nations in our affairs, than they are in the interests of the people they govern.
    Let Right be Done
    Now we all have to decide and choose. I have said before “Let Right Be Done”. It needs to happen now. It’s time to start the process of taking back our country from this new breed of Monarchy and Lords. – It seems that “No” might still be in fashion after all.

    © July 2009, Stephen Dol. All rights reserved.
    You are free to disseminate this document provided it is cited in context and due credit is given to the author.

  • Family Integrity #464 — McCoskrie Meeting invitation

    Family Integrity #464 — McCoskrie Meeting invitation

    See below.

    Craig & Barbara Smith

    https://mail.google.com/a/hef.org.nz/?ui=2&ik=ab0eb6de71&view=att&th=1228704fdcc4a095&attid=0.1&disp=inline&zw

  • Police in Christchurch on Smacking

    Keep listening – it is less than 1 minute

    Police on smacking.mp3 (audio/mpeg) 144K

    .

    .