Blog
-
Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’
MEDIA RELEASE 16 December 2009
Families Reject Smacking Report and Claims of ‘Misleading’
“Why were we never consulted” – Parents
We, the parents who were accused of misrepresenting the facts of our smacking cases and therefore misleading Family First, are refuting the claims, and reject the findings of the report commissioned by the Prime Minister.
Why were we never consulted in the process? It appears that our accounts of what happened and the supporting documentation we provided, including court, police and CYF documents, to Family First has been ignored and the only opinion that matters has been that of the police and CYF. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow our voice to be heard.
The report contains glaring errors including
- misrepresentation of basic facts,
- contains alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive,
- fails to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults
- reports a case where the police prosecution was dismissed by the court, yet the report still argues that all police action was appropriate
- fails to address a number of cases where parents were investigated by police or CYF for erroneous claims of smacking made by passers-by or the children themselves ringing 111
In one of the cases, the parent involved says
CYF fully acknowledge that their handling of this case around alleged smacking was inappropriate and breached good practice. They have apologized, both in written form and in person, and freely acknowledge that their failure to adhere to good practice caused undue stress to the family. Although it was certainly appropriate to investigate, the separation of the family for 72 hours should never have happened.
In another case, the parent involved says
The report has included material which paints me as abusing my child yet that evidence was never accepted in court, was only alleged, and the child even renounced those claims to CYF and said the complaint was made up – yet I am still painted as guilty.
As parents referred to in the report, we believe that we should have had the opportunity to respond to the claims made by the police and CYF. This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides.
portunity to respond to the claims made by the
We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area.
Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns.
We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts.
The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.
Signed
“John and Sue” – pg 27
Parent – “Father charged for one smack” – pg 24
Parent – “Father charged for shoulder shake” – p21
“John and Mary” – pg 23
“Tania” – pg 30
“Briar” – pg 29
“Jeff and Mary” – pg 28
Parent – “My daughter ran from our house” – pg 31
(page numbers refer to relevant case in Prime Minister’s Report http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Sec59_review.pdf )
Information provided of police/CYF investigations but was not even included in review
Mother suspended for tapping child on hand
Father charged for ‘shoulder shake’ of boy refusing to get out of bed
Mother of 10 year old who rings 111
ENDS
READ MORE Specific Detail Showing How the Report Misrepresents the Facts
Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up -
PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
13 December 2009
PM Should Heed Legal Advice on Smacking Law
Family First NZ says that an expert legal opinion on the smacking law published in the latest NZ Law Journal is confirmation that John Key needs to amend the law, not the guidelines, in order to deliver what he has told NZ parents.
The article by Prof Richard Ekins from Auckland University entitled “’Light Smacking’ and Discretion” says
- the 2007 Act makes it quite clear that parents who lightly smack their children for the purpose of correction commit a criminal act – contrary to the ‘sales pitch’ by politicians. It also criticises a number of MP’s for the way they have tried to present the effects of the new law
- any Police policy not to prosecute light smacking is unlawful. ‘If the Government wishes to protect “good parents” from the criminal law then it cannot rely on s 59(4) but must instead invite Parliament to enact legislation specifying when and how reasonable force – a light smack – for the purpose of correction is justified.’
- ‘The Police guidelines for the new s 59 demonstrate a tension between the presumption that light smacking of a child is inconsequential – effectively the Government’s position – and the Police Family Violence Policy’ – namely zero tolerance
- the police guidelines indicate that a parent who lightly smacks their child on more than one occasion or who smacks more than one of their children should be automatically prosecuted
- ‘Reasonable persons accept a duty to obey the law and hence are concerned that the law be reasonable. Because the Act makes it unlawful – a criminal offence – for any person to act in this way, the prospect of being accused, convicted, and punished, while not unimportant, is of secondary interest.’
“John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores 87% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague. Legal experts agree with him. It is a badly written law as it stands,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“As the Ekins article says, good parents’ primary concern is that they operate under reasonable laws because they accept a duty to obey the law. They may obey the law but that doesn’t mean they agree with it.”
“The PM said earlier this week that a light smack is ok and shouldn’t be criminalised – a view shared by more than 80% of the country. But that’s not what the law says, as proved by this article,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Mr Key should take legal advice – not political advice – and amend the law to deliver what he wants, thereby giving parents certainty that they are parenting within the law. Then perhaps we can start to focus on the real causes of child abuse and the rotten parents who are abusing their kids and don’t care what the law says.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director Mob. 027 55 555 42
Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up -
“Richard Dawkins”: – like you’ve never seen him before
World famous evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins is coming to NZ for the Wellington Festival of the Arts 2010.
I was able to get with “Richard” and interview him ‘after’ he arrived in the country…
See the in-your-face interview – unlike any “Richard” has done before at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2RMU9_7jSY
If you like the video, pass the link on…
If you have a website and would like to embed the video, go right ahead and do so…
-
Abortion Supervisory Committee Report 2009
Media Release
Abortion Supervisory Committee Report 2009
The Abortion Supervisory Committee’s [ASC] report was tabled in Parliament on 8th December. The Committee reported 17,940 abortions in New Zealand 2008.
This is a reduction of 440 on the 2007 year figure of 18,380. While encouraging, Right to Life reminds New Zealanders that each life is unique and irreplaceable. Hopefully one reason for the decrease is the increasing recognition in the community that abortion not only destroys innocent defenceless unborn children, it also harms the physical and mental health of women and their families.
Right to Life is concerned about the unlawful abortions authorised in 2008.
The statistics for 2008 reveal that 98% of abortions performed were authorised on the grounds of serious danger to the mental health of the mother. This statistic has been constant since 1977. Justice Miller’s judgement in the High Court in Wellington, (date) in the judicial review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, supported the conclusion that many of these abortions are unlawful.
Justice Miller stated that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended.”
“In my opinion, the statistics and the committee’s comments since the Court of Appeal made that observation, do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand has abortion on request” Dr Christine Forster was previously chairperson of the ASC from June 1993 to August 2001, a period of nearly eight years.
The Abortion Supervisory Committee’s response is tragic. They are seeking to provide even greater access to chemical abortion by supporting the wider use of the toxic chemical Mifegyne RU486. This use of RU486, a ‘human pesticide’, in a pill form imposes an incredible psychological trauma on women, often leaving the mother to cope with aborted body parts from their baby.
The report reveals that 140 disabled unborn children were killed in 2008 – how is this justified? It is deplorable that only the perfect are permitted to be born. A child does not forfeit its right to life because it has a disability.
Right to Life believes that many innocent healthy unborn children have been deprived of their life unlawfully; this is a grave injustice – a violation of their right to life. It also permits the exploitation and abandonment of women. This is the justice issue of our era.
Right to Life is gravely concerned at the increase in repeat abortions in 2008. Of the 17,940 abortions performed,
- 11,312, (63%) of the total abortions were a woman’s first abortion.
- 6628, (37%) were repeat abortions, an increase of 2% on 2007 figures
- 4,469 women in 2008 were having their second abortion,
- 1490 were having their third abortion,
- 461 were having their fourth abortion,
- 143 their fifth,
- 40 their sixth and
- 25 their seventh or more abortion.
These statistics are scandalous and indicate that abortion is being used as a back up for failed contraception. The abortion laws do not provide for failed contraception as grounds for abortion.
Right to Life asks why the Committee is not taking action to address this critical problem.
The report reveals that:
- 8,041 women were using contraceptives at the time their child was conceived.
Of these women,
- 4,898 were using condoms
- 2,901 were using contraceptives.
- These statistics show that contraceptives have a high failure rate. It is a tragedy that innocent unborn children are being killed in order to provide for another’s so called sexual freedom. The Committee suggested in its report that because of New Zealand’s high abortion rate (in comparison with other countries) that we need more long acting contraceptives and that the government should consider reducing financial barriers to their use. If the Committee was serious about reducing our high abortion rate they would ask the government to:
- promote abstinence before marriage
- adoption in preference to terminating the lives of healthy unborn children
- promote child/teen protection from sexual exploitation and sexualizing by the media and advertising agencies
The Committee reports that “Over the past year the ASC has become conscious that workforce issues will need to be addressed in coming years to ensure continuity of abortion services in future.” The ASC is aware that there are very few operating doctors in New Zealand under the age of 50. Right to Life commends those doctors who faithful to the Hippocratic traditions of their healing profession have the utmost respect for the right to life of every child from the moment of conception and refuse to have any part in the killing of innocent and defenceless unborn children. Right to Life is opposed to any efforts that the Abortion Supervisory Committee might make to subvert the ethics of good doctors by encouraging them to become involved in the killing of unborn babies.
Right to Life believes that a nation that kills its own children does not have a future and earnestly requests that:
- The government promote a culture of life by promoting adoption as a loving life affirming option.
- Hold the Abortion Supervisory Committee accountable for “pseudo-legal” abortions in this country.
This is preferable to life destroying abortion which promotes a culture of death.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life New Zealand Inc.
Phone 03 3856111
-
Reviewing the Anti-smacking law
Reformation Testimony
The criminalisation of New Zealand parents who discipline their children biblically: Or who will you obey, God or man?
New Zealand has a new law which makes the corporal punishment of children a crime. This includes smacking them with a wooden spoon or strap. The government has commissioned two reports, both of which claim that parents are unaffected by the new law. But the reporters failed to ask even one parent how he feels about this unwarranted government intrusion into his life. On some occasions the charges brought by the police have been dismissed in court. But the police, the psychologists, the ‘welfare’ agencies and the politicians are quite happy to see parents investigated, prosecuted and punished for using corporal punishment on children. Parents are now intimidated by unruly children who threaten to report their parents to the police if a parent dare touch them. Parental authority has been undermined by this wicked legislation. A government is supposed to reward the good and punish evil (Romans 13:1-7), but in New Zealand rewards the evildoer and punishes the good. Prime Minister Key claims that parents won’t be investigated for giving a ‘light’ smack, but if there is some other connected issue, then the police will investigate. Of course what constitutes a connected issue is left unexplained. The facts are that family members have been investigated for the most trivial acts of discipline which have been redefined as assaults.
For the video response to the latest government spin go here:
www.covenantedreformation.com/#cc Garnet Milne
-
Family Integrity #494 — What others are doing – Copenhagen conference
Dear Friends,
Some highly motivated sheep and beef farmers, farming off the East Coast of the North Island, recently organized to expose “Climategate” here !
They presented a 10,000+ signature petition to Parliament on 25 November, with the main thrust being, “government should not commit to signing anything at Copenhagen as it would bring excessive hardship to NZ families, and no measurable benefit to the climate.”
Their excellent website is www.climaterealists.org.nz
On the website is the petition presented to Parliament, plus there are pages of facts, costs, articles, downloads, contributions, & various other pertinent links.
Please sign up for the “Climate Realists‘ Newsletter” on the homepage of the website !
-
Stop beating on Sweden’s parents!
Stop beating on Sweden’s parents!
By Caroline Olsson
Translation: Ruby Harrold-Claesson, Lawyer, President of the NCHR
This article was previously published on the Swedish Internet Site, Newsmill.se – 2009-12-03
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2009/12/03/sluta-sla-pa-sveriges-foraldrar
Swedish authorities and legal institutions have a negative attitude towards parenthood, which is not good for the relationship between children and parents. Many children need more time with their parents to feel safe. Now the government intends be even stricter with school attendance, and even prevent parents who want to take care of their children’s schooling, so-called Home-schooling. They are also negative to children’s absence from school for travel with their families, and in general they announce “tougher measures” which will not help the confused children.Children need their parents as life-coaches, but there is so little time in today’s stressful society. Children need a solid relationship with an adult to find their identity, and develop their personalities in a natural way.
Swedish society does not respect parenthood. Parents are seen as some sort of service to the school system, which will ensure the provision of children who are rested, fed, have done their homework and are interested in going to school.I am sure that very many of the problems of today’s society, have arisen precisely because time for children and parents to be together has shrunk. This has happened gradually, and perhaps imperceptibly. We have given priority to other things, and now we need to wake up and see that too many children are suffering.
Those in power do not see this connection, so now they want to legislate more stringent attendance at school and even “tougher measures”. They want to prevent parents who have the opportunity to take responsibility for their children’s schooling, so-called Home-schooling, by requiring “special reasons”. It will also be more difficult to get time off from school for example to travel with the family. They have not tried to find out how very many children suffer today in the schools, due to bullying, harassment, and the like. Politicians talk about the “right to education”, as if there are no problems in the schools. Many children and young people are experiencing the “right” to attend school and social interaction, which the politicians are talking about, rather like a prison and a torment. A very large proportion of children today are exhibiting anxiety about going to school.
Politicians say: “We must have schools, because we have had them since the 1800s.” Usually it would not be so modern for you to say that something is from the 1800s. We are living in a completely different society now. Back then they wanted to increase public knowledge. But now the level of education of most adults is much higher than primary school, so now there is no reason to force all children to go to school, if the parents have other options.
The Government’s new Education Act Bill sends out a very serious message to all the parents in this country. We are now being prohibited from giving our children a better alternative to going to school. Parents are simply not allowed to judge what is good for their own children.
Sweden needs a new approach to parenthood. We need to see parents as experts on their children. The solution is not to pull children away from their parents even more, but to support children and parents, to make use of all the time they can get to spend together.
Sweden is selling out the immense power that parents’ responsibility for their children represents. This is a disaster. We cannot afford to do without it. It is upon that power that a society rests. If you who are in power continue to display this negative attitude, you will undermine the whole society. You cannot replace parenting by doubling the number of school nurses and counsellors. Parenthood cannot be substituted at all. Your animosity towards parents will only cost countless extra billions.
-
The video clips below are an absolute must – Copenhagen conference
The video clips below are an absolute must.
Copenhagen conference, in session right now (Thursday 10 Dec 2009 NZ time), is planning to set up a type of world government that will heavily control economics in the name of (the total fraud called) global warming.
“Climategate” is the fraud of global warming that was only recently exposed, but which has hardly been mentioned in NZ…it is huge in the USA and UK. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/KiwiSmithFamily/World%2BViews%2Bin%2BFocus/
Craig & Barbara Smith
Home Education Foundation
Ph. +64 6 357-4399
Lord Monckton Returns to Alex Jones TV To Talk About The Scientific Fraud Taking Place At Copenhagen
Alex Jones of Infowars.com welcomes back to the show Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and adviser to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s. Monckton is a vociferous critic of the climate scam gang. He reports from the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZW-BF70TsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHSjCulvb_o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6bXxC1d_rE
-
Some Correction Needed, But John Key says it’s OK!
From Family First NZ
Some Correction
Needed
But John Key says it’s OK!
Prime Minister John Key and Nigel Latta say the anti-smacking law is working well, that there is no evidence of good parents being criminalised, that Family First has been misled by parents , and that light smacking shouldn’t be a criminal offence . So here’s some questions:
* Why did CYF formally apologise to this family for the way they handled a smacking complaint?
CYFS says sorry to ‘traumatised’ family
NZ Herald Jul 31, 2009
* Why did this parent get prosecuted ?
‘I asked for help but instead got conviction’
NZ Herald Jul 28, 2009 A Wellington solo father says he went to Child, Youth and Family Services for help – and ended up with a conviction for smacking his daughter.
* Why was this family investigated and referred to a government agency?
School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
Sunday Star Times Oct 28 2007
* The law (and Plunket / Barnardos / Childrens Commissioner / Families Commissioner) says a smack is illegal . But John Key says its acceptable and shouldn’t be a criminal offence . Who’s correct ?
“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said. Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not ‘for the purposes of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons. “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said – Source NZ Herald
(By the way, we agree!!)
* Why didn’t the report interview and seek feedback from kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting?
* Why didn’t the report address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents , and threatening to report them to the police or CYF?
* Why didn’t the report address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents ?
* Why didn’t the report address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence policy which demands zero tolerance?
* Why didn’t the report address why so many cases of what are supposed to be serious ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments , and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all?
* Why didn’t the report address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.WHY?
When we get some answers we’ll let you know!But please be aware – the latest report does not answer these important questions .
Have a great week 
Bob McCoskrie
National Director