Family Integrity

Tag: Anti-smacking

  • Queensland – Laws a legal minefield: lawyer

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/antismacking-laws-a-legal-minefield-lawyer/2008/06/30/1214677902879.html

    Laws a legal minefield: lawyer

    Christine Kellett | June 30, 2008 – 11:59AM

    Anti-smacking laws to punish Queensland parents who used “excessive force” to discipline their children could be too hard to prosecute, a lawyer has warned.

    Moves by the Labor Party to toughen its stance on smacking were made at its state conference earlier this month, with suggestions the practice would eventually be outlawed.

    But Brisbane lawyer Michael Bosscher, of criminal defence firm Ryan and Bosscher, said changes to the Criminal Code to make smacking illegal would be a legal minefield and would cause more problems than they solved.

    He cited the example of New Zealand, where anti-smacking legislation had sparked a public backlash and had prompted calls for a referendum.

    “It is amazing to think Queensland is considering going down this path when New Zealand is trying to reverse its decision,” Mr Bosscher said.

    “Our laws already provide the option to prosecute parents who abuse their children.

    The move comes after shocking cases of children being abandoned outside casinos and hotels in South East Queensland while their parents socialised hit the headlines earlier this year.

    Mr Bosscher said said practical difficulties would arise when police, lawyers and the courts tried to prosecute parents who smacked.

    “The real danger with new laws is how you interpret and enforce them and there is a risk of zealous authorities prosecuting parents for minor smacks that would traditionally be seen as just part of parenting.

    “There’s this nanny state mentality here where the state government is imposing draconian laws upon families, in theory to protect children. However if you start prosecuting parents for smacking children, the potential to destroy families and therefore hurt children, is enormous.

    “Anti-smacking laws would be a controversial issue to prosecute in the courts because one police officers definition of excessively hard smacking could be radically different from another officers view.

    Mr Bosscher said Queensland laws currently allowed parents to use “reasonable force” to discipline their children.

    “A change to the Criminal Code is not needed. The law already has provision to prosecute parents- or any person- who inflicts serious, grievous or bodily harm on a child,” he said.

    “What they are really talking about is changing the law to brand parents as criminals. This is wrong and is not needed in Queensland.”

  • Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed as Wasting Valuable CYF Time

    MEDIA RELEASE

    8 July 2008

    Anti-Smacking Law Confirmed as Wasting Valuable CYF Time

    Family First NZ says that the evidence is in that CYF’s limited resources are being wasted, with a ‘blow-out’ in CYF notifications but the levels of actual abuse not increasing, or at worst not being caught.

    “This is perfect proof that the ideologically flawed anti-smacking law has resulted in unwarranted reports of good parents which is a waste of the limited resources of CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    Statistics released by CYF to the Nelson Mail reported today showed that the total number of notifications received by CYF had increased steadily over the last four financial years. However, the agency’s figures showed a significant drop in actual cases found to involve abuse or neglect.

    And figures from CYF’s national 2007/08 Third Quarter report show a 32% increase in notifications over the previous 12 months but numbers requiring further action remaining the same.

    “If the figures could be attributed to a rising intolerance to child abuse and domestic violence, we would be seeing an increasing rate of cases requiring further action – but we are not. That is simply because of a misguided law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “CYF resources are being wasted because of a law that labels good parents as potential child abusers, and distracts CYF and Police from dealing with the real causes of child abuse and actual child abuse.”

    “The police report released last month also confirmed that there had been a 300% increase in families being investigated yet less than 5% were serious enough to warrant prosecution. And the number of actual child assaults are now at almost the same rate as before the law change.”

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 85% of NZ’ers according to recent research). Then CYF and Police will have the time and resources to focus on the ‘rotten parents’ who are abusing and killing their children.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • A great post from darrenrickard.blogspot

    A great post from darrenrickard.blogspot

    http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/07/param-namemovie-value.html

    Helen Clark stares down the barrel and lies

    I don’t usually post You Tube stuff here but this one is a gem of a home video. From Gyon Espiner from TV One news from last year.

    Ms Clark says in similar words that, she would never like to see good parents live in fear of someone knocking on their door should they correct their child by giving them a wee smack.

    That to pass a law, such as the anti smacking law, would be “defying human nature”, and Labour just would never do such a thing.

    She in fact was caught out lying, again, but this time it was on video!

    Now we shouldn’t be surprised about Ms Clark and her stance on smacking kids for “corrective purposes”, because she was part of a government in the 1980s that removed corporal punishment in schools that has led to violence and bullying in schools today and it just keeps getting worse.

    Ironically it is one of Clark’s poster children for the anti smacking law, Cindy Kiro, that was last week looking into an initiative to “help” curb bullying of teachers and children on Helen’s behalf.

    I don’t care what people say, I still can’t fight the feelings against pure logic when one tries to “fix” a problem that one created in the first place.

    The repeal of section 59 will have similar consequences that the removal of corporal punishment from schools has.

    Frankly, if you don’t get that, then you are thicker than Sue Bradford on Mogadon.

    Related Political Animal reading

    You can take the family out of South Auckland
    Sue Bradford strikes out, Again
    Helen Clark kicks democracy below the belt
    Anti smacking referendum gets the votes
    Sacha Cobern’s letter to NZ Herald Editor
    Cindy Kiro gets violent
    Anti-smacking law puts young boy at risk
    Mallard in Court
    Trevor Mallard’s anti violence advert
    Duck Season Extended: Mallard must go

  • Anti-smacking referendum timing (2)

    From:

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=452

    Speaking 2008 So the PM says she will get the Governor General to order that a postal poll be held next year.

    Parliament can stymie that scheme too. Section 22AB allows a majority vote in Parliament to require that the last day of postal voting be the date of the general election. The words are clear:

    “(6) [If there has been an order to conduct a postal poll, and ] —

    • (a) a general election must be held on a date that is within 12 months after the date on which the indicative referendum petition is presented to the House of Representatives (because of section 17 of the Constitution Act 1986); and

    • (b) the House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the voting period to close on the polling day for the general election.

    (7) In the circumstances described in subsection (6), the date on which the voting period closes is polling day”

    To have a postal referendum poll close on election day would be almost as good as holding it with the general election, in terms of reminding people of her arrogant interference in ordinary lives and decisions. Only downside would be the $millions wasted on the postal poll, instead of combining it.

    John Armstrong’s piece in this morning’s Herald pointed out that the whole 1984 snap election was organised in 4 weeks.

    Clark’s reasons……A simple “it will be separate from the election because $10m and the criticism are still less to me than having my short-memory voters being reminded of my contempt for their values” would scarcely gain as much attention (and now ridicule).

  • FI406-We got the numbers on the Petition!

    24 June 2008 – Family Integrity #406 — We got the numbers!

    The Kiwi Party

    They will not drown out the voice of the people!

    Kiwi Party Leader and Tauranga electorate candidate Larry Baldock will today resubmit to the Clerk of the House the petition calling for a referendum on the Anti-smacking law that was passed by Parliament in May 2007.
    The petition was first presented on Feb 29 this year with 324,511 signatures but was deemed to have insufficient valid signatures after the audit process had been carried out. The required number to force a referendum is 285,027 and the petition fell short by approx 18,000.


    The CIR Petition Act 1993 allows for an extension period of up to 2 months for the petition sponsor to gather further signatures and then resubmit all the signatures again. The Clerk of The House then conducts a completely new audit process on a new 1 in 11 sample to determine if a referendum is to be held.

    Mr Baldock said he was very confident that they now had sufficient signatures to ensure a referendum goes ahead.
    “Over the past 15 months we have collected more than 390,000 signatures all over this country. That means we are now handing in 100,000 more than required and more than 60,000 new signatures since we first handed the petition in just over 3 and half months ago.

    “Quite frankly I do not know who Sue Bradford, Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, and Barnardos Chief executive Murray Edridge are trying to kid when they claim that attitudes have changed. I would like to see the supporters of this crazy ill-conceived law try and collect even 100,000 signatures in support of it, let alone the nearly 400,000 we have collected, the Kiwi Party leader said.

    “Why are these people so afraid of democracy?

    In Tauranga last week National Party leader John Key said he was not going to change the law if he became Prime Minister. In response to a question from the floor, he said that he would only make changes if he saw good parents being prosecuted.

    “Personally I find that most disturbing,” said Mr Baldock. “John Key seems to be catching Parliamentary flu, that sickness which afflicts so many of our political leaders and causes them to believe they know better than the people who elected them to their positions of responsibility.


    “The only acceptable response to the referendum is for John Key, Helen Clark, Peter Dunne, and Jim Anderton to promise the people of New Zealand that they will lay aside their personal opinions on the subject of how good parents should correct their children, and give their solemn commitment to abide by and implement the majority view of the people of New Zealand.

    “Winston Peters, who has held the balance of power for the past three years could have stopped the Bradford Bill in its tracks. Once again he has showed everyone that he was more interested in enjoying the baubles of office around the world, than representing good families in need of a voice here at home.


    “Our success in collecting these signatures has in part been helped by the fact that many voters have had enough of being ignored by arrogant politicians. This Bradford anti-smacking law has been the latest example of a blatant disregard for our democracy as parliament has passed a long line of laws against the will of the majority of New Zealanders. I am determined not to let them get away with this one,” said Mr Baldock.

    Ends

    Larry Baldock
    Party Leader
    Phone: 021 86 4833
    Email: l.baldock@xtra.co.nz