Family Integrity

Tag: Child Abuse

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 July 2010

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step

    ‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ, and says that it will be an important first step in identifying and targeting the real causes of child abuse.

    The call comes following the death of 6 month old Cezar Taylor. More than 20 children have been killed since the passing of the anti-smacking law, maintaining the rate of child abuse deaths that existed before the law change.

    “We are tip-toeing around the real issues of alcohol abuse, drugs, declining rates of marriage, increasing levels of violence and sexual content in our media, and welfare which rewards dysfunction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on these difficult issues as well as mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF and CYF reports.”

    “The 88% of voters in the recent Referendum who opposed the anti-smacking law are NZ’ers exasperated with the fact that politicians and government funded groups seem more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    HALL OF SHAME

    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007

    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007

    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007

    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007

    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa

    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu

    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury

    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008

    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008

    10.  16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008

    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009

    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009

    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009

    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09

    15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09

    16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009 http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=41369

    17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    19. 13 month old New Lynn 18 Feb 2010
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626907

    20. Infanticide Waltham 18 Feb 2010
    Police investigating the death of a baby who was found at a Christchurch address yesterday are looking for the child’s mother.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3342576/Police-appeal-for-dead-babys-mother

    21. Cezar Taylor 6 months July 2010


    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 December 2009

    Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

    WORK STILL TO BE DONE TO GIVE PARENTS CERTAINTY ON SMACKING LAW…

    Family First NZ has released its annual list of the top family issues to be tackled, and heading the list for 2010 is the protection of children from ‘corporate pedophilia’ and reducing the ‘raunch culture’ which is harming the self-esteem, body image and academic performance of young people – especially young girls.

    “The recent marketing of sexualised shirts by Cotton On Kids to be worn by babies, the provocative Little Losers line targeted at young teenagers by clothing store Jay Jays, sexually charged billboard advertising in public places, and graphic sexual music videos, dolls, and tween magazines and websites which encourage young people to look older and act older are examples of marketers crossing the line of what is acceptable and appropriate for our communities and for the protection of our children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “A premature interest in a sexy appearance, an obsession about body image as a teenager, and an undermining of the social prohibition against seeing children as sexual objects and sexually attractive, are all huge warning flags that profits are currently more important than protecting the wellbeing of our children.”

    Also in the list is a call to establish a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the real causes of child abuse, and a number of measures to recognise and respect the role of parents, including parental notification laws and amending the anti-smacking law to give parents certainty under the law.

    The list calls for the urgent establishment of an independent CYF Complaints Authority, and amending the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels.

    “There is still huge work to be done on reducing our child abuse rates, but also making sure that CYF and other statutory agencies don’t overstep their levels of intervention. The government is also hoping that the smacking debate will disappear, but while parents are trying to raise law abiding productive members of society, the debate will not be going away. It will become an election issue if the government doesn’t act to amend this law.”

    “The current government is attempting to stay clear of anything that might suggest social engineering,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “But there are a number of social issues which this government must tackle if they wish to be respected by parents trying to raise children in an increasingly difficult culture which undermines their efforts.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    FULL LIST

    1. Laws and Codes of Advertising to protect children/young people from sexualised images and marketing of sexual messages towards children

    The Australian Childhood Foundation released a report in Apr 2007, which showed that problem sexual behaviour in children as young as six, often appears to be influenced by sex imagery in the media. This is challenging the previously held view that most child sex abusers were responding to having being abused themselves.

    And a recent report by the American Psychological Association points to the dangers when sexualisation leads to girls viewing themselves as objects and having an unhealthy preoccupation with appearance. The pressure can lead to depression, eating disorders, and poor academic performance.

    Advertisements for kids’ products should not include sexual imagery, imply that children are sexual beings, or imply that owning a product will enhance a child’s sexuality.

    As prominent Australian psychologist Steve Biddulph said, “…smarter parents protect their kids, but as the media environment and the shopping malls deteriorate, the kids with not very bright parents have their mental healthy and sexual health degraded.”

    There is also research suggesting that pedophilia and child pornography is being driven by the sexualisation of children in mainstream marketing.

    2. Parental notification

    A parent is required to sign a note giving permission for a child to go on a school trip to the zoo but does not have to be notified or give consent if the same daughter wants to use contraception or have an abortion, and can actually be sneaked off for the procedure by Family Planning or the school nurse. Some young girls have been targeted for vaccines by family doctors without the knowledge of the parents.

    If parents are expected to support and raise their children to be law-abiding and positive members of our society, then these same parents should be kept informed and involved in the ongoing welfare of that child, and not undermined by laws which isolate children from their parents.

    3. Establishing a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Child Abuse

    We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by the various UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports.

    Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed. Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.

    Children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse. An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step

    4. Amending the anti-smacking law to provide certainty for parents

    The Prime Minister has confused parents by saying recently that a light smack is completely ok and should not be treated as a criminal offence, yet only a few months earlier admitting that the effect of the law is that smacking is a criminal offence.

    The recent unbalanced and superficial review was another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.

    A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment – the Boscawen amendment. The politicians should demand a conscience vote on this issue, and the law should give parents certainty as to whether they are parenting within the law or not.

    5. Establishing an Independent CYF Complaints Authority

    Families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers have no independent body to appeal to. This is grossly unfair when families are at risk, ignored, or are being ripped apart often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker.

    An independent CYF Complaints Authority is also in the best interests of social workers as it will provide an independent body to ensure that appropriate policy and procedures have been followed. This will result in public confidence and accountability for actions and decisions by CYF workers.

    There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.

    6. Amend the prostitution law to protect communities and families from street prostitution and residential brothels

    The politicians gave local communities a ‘hospital pass’ when they changed the law and left the local councils the impossible job of balancing the requirements of the law with the huge concerns of families. They cannot now ignore the pleas from communities throughout NZ who are saying that the decriminalisation of prostitution has been a spectacular failure.

    The opposition to a residential based brothel in the Wellington area, opposition to a brothel in the main street of Dannevirke, opposition to brothels being zoned for the main shopping areas in Lower Hutt, opposition to a sex parlour operating in the same building as a preschool in Wellington, Hamilton City Council’s successful restriction on residential brothels, and attempts by the Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution, shows that communities are not accepting the liberalised laws.


    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

  • Mother jailed for assaulting kids

    Hall of Shame

    Mother jailed for assaulting kids

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3111544/Mother-jailed-for-assaulting-kids

    NZPA

    A woman who repeatedly assaulted her three children, including a one-year-old boy, has been jailed for 3-1/2 years.

    The 41-year-old woman has name suppression to protect the identity of her children. She was found guilty by a jury last month on nine counts of assault with a weapon and one of assault on a child under the age of 14.

    During the Dunedin District Court trial, the jury heard evidence that the children were assaulted over a 21 month period with weapons that included a jug cord, tent pole, belt and wooden spoon during various incidents in Napier, Gisborne and Invercargill.

    In sentencing today, Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said the children had “suffered tremendously” over the period of the offending.

    He said they were assaulted for everyday occurrences and lived in “a climate of violence and fear”.

    Five of the charges of assault with a weapon were representative charges and the judge said he was satisfied the assaults happened on a regular basis.

    He advised the woman to read the victim impact reports for the three children, who were aged from one to nine years when the offending started.

    He noted the woman had shown remorse after being found guilty but said it was unfortunate to put the children through a trial that included cross-examination in court by her attorney following their video statements.

    The woman strenuously denied 11 of the 12 charges, only conceding that she had hit one of the children with a belt because he put a hole in a wall.

    Her defence on that charge was one of reasonable force, a defence that is no longer available under new “anti-smacking” legislation but still applies in this case because the incident happened before the new law came into force.

    Judge O’Driscoll said he had considered not only making the woman’s name public but also the names of her three children so that the wider public would know what they had been through and show understanding for their resulting behavioural problems.

    Defence counsel Tim Fournier took some issue with the impact statements of the three victims, saying it was not proved their behavioural problems were solely the result of the assaults.

    However, the judge said the victim reports made “disturbing reading” and the children’s potential in life had been seriously compromised by that.

    The youngest boy was suffering from post traumatic stress and the other boys were having social difficulties, anger and grief issues and displaying violent tendencies.

  • MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader, Larry Baldock, said the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) report confirms there is no clear evidence anywhere that the law change is making children safer. If the Police and CYF continue to claim it is business as usual then how come politicians love to say, as the Minister has done again today, “that the law is working as intended!”

    Mr Baldock asked, “Was the purpose of the law to make life difficult for good parents while achieving no significant benefit for the poor kids in this country who are being abused and killed on a regular basis?”

    “Peter Hughes’ conclusion in paragraphs 2 & 79 basically reveals once again that he does not understand the reality of what has happened in the homes of good parents all over this country.

    “He states, “In summary, I have not been able to find evidence to show that parents are being subject to unnecessary state intervention for occasionally lightly smacking their children.”

    “On the contrary, State intervention occurred on a massive scale when 113 MPs passed a law making smacking a criminal offence.

    When little Johnny or Susie comes home and tells Mum and Dad that the teacher told them they could report their parents to the police if they gave them a smack, that, Mr Hughes, is state intervention of the highest order and is why a massive 87.4% ‘NO’ vote occurred in our recent referendum.

    “In paragraph 42 of the report Peter Hughes informs us that CYF has not altered its policy since the introduction of the ‘anti-smacking law’.  All that that confirms is that his department has had an anti-smacking policy in force for some time.  This will come as no surprise to those New Zealanders who have had dealings with CYF social workers and staff.

    Ends

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 October 2009

    Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Essential

    ‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’

    Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Enquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ.

    The call comes following the suspected child abuse death of Wanganui toddler Karl Perigo-Check Junior which is the 18th case since the passing of the anti-smacking law.

    “We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on the difficult issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF, CYF and Children’s Commissioner reports,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

    “Over the past 30 years we have allowed a succession of policies to diminish the importance of family structure and marriage. We have watched as politicians have given adults the right to silence, bail and parole while the rights of children to be safe have been ignored. We have allowed children to be raised in homes with an unacceptable level of drug abuse, family dysfunction and physical and emotional harm. And we’ve allowed the media to fill our minds with increasing levels of sexual and violent images in the name of entertainment and freedom of speech.”

    “The 88% of voters who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children. They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”

    “Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there has been a continual stream of child abuse cases and the rate of child abuse deaths has continued at the same rate as before the new law with at least 18 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie. “Sue Bradford was right when she said that her law was never intended to deal with the problem of child abuse.”

    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”

    “An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie. www.stoptheabuse.org.nz

    HALL OF SHAME

    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007

    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007

    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007

    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007

    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa

    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu

    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury

    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008

    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008

    10.  16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008

    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009

    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009

    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009

    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09

    15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09

    16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009

    17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009 

    18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | 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

  • Dead baby’s parents bugged by police

    This is Child Abuse and this is what the Government and society needs to be bringing to an end:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2981151/Dead-babys-parents-bugged-by-police

    Dead baby’s parents bugged by police

    By CLIO FRANCIS – The Dominion Post

    A couple accused of starving and beating their 11-week-old baby were caught after police secretly recorded conversations between the pair discussing her death, a jury has been told.

    Azees Mahomed, 31, originally from South Africa, subjected his daughter to a sustained period of “systematic neglect and violence” before she was killed, a jury in the High Court at Auckland was told yesterday.

    Tahani Mahomed died in Auckland’s Starship children’s hospital on New Year’s Day, 2008. She was admitted to Middlemore Hospital four days earlier with severe head injuries.

    Mahomed, 31, is charged with murdering Tahani. He also faces two charges of grievous bodily harm, which relate to allegedly breaking his daughter’s leg and injuring her head so severely that it caused brain damage, and one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life.

    His wife, Tabbasum Mahomed, 26, faces one charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life.

    Both parents deny all charges.

    Crown prosecutor Phillip Hamlin, in his opening statement, said police were suspicious about the death and, three days later, on the day of Tahani’s funeral, they bugged the couple’s Otahuhu home. “You will hear the two of them discuss coaching their older daughter so she doesn’t make an incriminating statement against them,” he said.

    One of the recorded conversations, which was in Hindi and translated into English, detailed Tabbasum Mahomed saying: “They will question Tasmia [the sister] about what happened to Tahani, who hit/killed Tahani.”

    Her husband replies: “Daddy hit/kill, Daddy hit/kill, that’s what she’ll say.”

    The court was told the Hindi word used is said to be the equivalent of either hit or kill in English.

    The recordings also alluded to the couple’s neglect of the baby, the court was told.

    Azees Mahomed was recorded as saying police had “one big proof against us” because they knew the couple had left the baby locked in a car in hot weather and on another occasion had not changed her nappy for an entire day.

    Tahani had been born healthy and of a good weight on October 7, 2007. But, just over two months later, lay dead, Mr Hamlin said.

    “In 11 weeks, baby Tahani has been neglected and not fed.

    “In 11 weeks, baby Tahani has been left in a hot car for hours.

    “In 11 weeks, baby Tahani has brain injury from the first injury she suffered.

    “In 11 weeks, baby Tahani was the victim of the second and fatal head injury,” Mr Hamlin told the jury.

    The Crown alleges Tahani was murdered by her father when her head was “slammed against a very hard surface, twice”.

    The second blow to head had been of such violence the child never recovered, Mr Hamlin said. Azees Mohamed was also responsible for pulling the baby’s left leg so hard it broke her shin bone.

    When the parents finally took their daughter to hospital on December 28, 2007, she was gravely ill, the court heard.

    The doctor who examined Tahani when she arrived at Middlemore Hospital described her as severely “malnourished”, estimating her weight to be only 4 kilograms.

    Mr Hamlin said that, when the Mahomeds had arrived at the hospital, they had told medical staff “they could not understand how or why the baby was in such a critical condition”.

    Tabbasum said the baby had been “alert and laughing” only a day earlier and was smiling in the car on the way to hospital.

    However the Crown alleges the child’s first brain injury was so severe she would have been left unable to breathe properly, paralysed and blind.

    Chris Wilkinson-Smith said his client, Azees Mahomed, was denying the “terrible accusation” he murdered his daughter.

    “The simple answer is that he did not harm her.”

    The Crown will call 50 witnesses for the trial which has been set down for three weeks.

  • Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

    Smacking debate proves both parties want to play nanny

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/2815488/Smacking-debate-proves-both-parties-want-to-play-nanny

    By MICHAEL LAWS – Sunday Star Times

    Last updated 09:47 30/08/2009

    OPINION: Is John Key thick? Or does the prime minister think that we are?

    These are the only two possible explanations, after a week in which the National Party leader exposed a hubris that has taken him only nine months to acquire. By contrast, Helen Clark took nine years.

    The pro-smacking referendum result of nine days ago was the most significant defeat of Wellington liberalism since McDonald’s ended the reign of “nouvelle cuisine”. And yet Key keeps finding new ways to forestall and frustrate democracy.

    His latest effort has been his unilateral declaration that National will not support Act MP John Boscawen’s private member’s bill that seeks to enact the public will on the smacking issue. Why? Because the law is working properly, replied the PM.

    Which is a nonsense. Because it is not working at all.

    Exhibit one: the 16 dead children – killed by their family/whanau since the passage of Sue Bradford’s anti- smacking bill. Those 16 children are a roll-call of shame and not one of them was saved by parliament’s good intentions.

    They will, inevitably, be joined by more child fatalities. From the same predominant ethnic group, and the same appalling underclass. Toxic whanau who will never reference their behaviour by what parliament says or does.

    Of the 16 kiddies killed since the passage of this hated legislation, 11 were of Maori background, two Asian, one of Arab extraction and two are unknown at the time of writing.

    And yet this was an act of parliament intended to arrest the onward march of child cruelty. It was supposed to “change the culture” – although change it by stopping the majority of good parents from lightly disciplining their children.

    Exhibit two: the law itself. And this is where the prime minister is not simply wrong but deliberately misleading the country.

    The law is explicit. Section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961) states that “nothing justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. And if anyone is in doubt on that – and Section 59 delineates occasions when parental force might be warranted in protecting a child – the above imperative trumps those exceptions.

    Indeed the law is so inadequately and poorly drafted that it now includes the Key/Clark amendment that the prime minister seems determined to protect.

    “To avoid doubt,” it states, “it is affirmed that the police have the discretion not to prosecute.”

    Frankly, this is no concession. Police always have that discretion. The section simply recognises existing police practice. That the police have created their own operating procedures with regard to Section 59 is accepted. But Child Youth and Family do not have that discretion. They simply applied the law as it was written. And who could blame them?

    The best solution then is to change the law; not to retain a section that categorically states that, if I smack my child on the bottom or hand for corrective reasons, I am guilty of assault. This was always the intent of the Bradford bill – and remains the intent of the “Yes” lobby.

    Little wonder that Key is being lauded by Bradford, Bagust, the Children’s Commission and the like. In fact, this in itself should cause the National caucus to pause. The anti- smacking zealots back the prime minister, the rest of the country does not.

    In fact, it must be doubly embarrassing for Key that the best argument against his supine sophistry was advanced by himself in originally opposing the Bradford bill. Why, he asked parliament in 2007, would you allow a law that you have no intention of applying? Why indeed, prime minister.

    Key attempted an answer last week by suggesting that he didn’t want to waste parliament’s time. Except private member’s bills are inherently not the prime minister’s to dismiss. They are the private bills of individual MPs and used to address outstanding moral issues or to remedy quirks of fate or law. In this case, both imperatives apply.

    And what could be more important to any ordinary family than parliament interfering with a parent’s right to correct their child? Such is, surely, as important as parliament gets? Especially when your party ran its “anti-nanny state” line so vigorously at the last election.

    Which leads one to the only possible conclusion. Key, secretly, thinks parents should be banned from lightly disciplining their children. Key is, we now discover, actually one the state’s nannies. A petty fascist.

    This means this is the end of the honeymoon. As the anti-smacking legislation came to define all that was wrong with Labour, so it has worked its revelatory magic with National. It has proven there is no real difference between the parties: that they both think they know best and the public is stupid.

    Tomorrow it will still be illegal to smack your child. The law states so. And it is also illegal for the prime minister to tell the police and CYF they can practically ignore this law. He simply does not have that authority as any number of public law precedents prove.

    Meanwhile, kiddies are being killed. The culture of violence that produces those deaths continues to spiral out of control. And we refuse to target those groups that we know are the most abusive and the most feral.

    No wonder US TV host David Letterman wants the prime minister on his late-night talk show. He could not have written a script so surreal.

  • Northland mother charged with daughter’s murder

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2817783/Northland-mother-charged-with-daughters-murder

    Northland mother charged with daughter’s murder

    By CLIO FRANCIS – Stuff.co.nz

    A Northland mother has been charged with the murder of her two-year-old daughter.

    The 32-year-old woman – who has name suppression – appeared before Judge Gittos at the Auckland District Court this morning.

    The murder charge was laid by police at Kaitaia District Court.

    The Kaitaia toddler was rushed to Starship Hospital earlier this month after she was found with serious injuries by family members.

    She died the next day in hospital.

    The woman stood crying throughout her brief appearance and was supported by a number of family members.

    Her lawyer, Belinda Sellars, said her client had been co-operating with the police investigation.

    After her last court appearance a family spokesman Maurice Waetford said the woman had “difficulty in her life… One good thing that I see that’s going to come out of this is that she’s going to get the specialist care that she needs.”

    The woman had suffered from post-natal depression in the past, Mr Waetford said. She had two other children. They were taken into CYF care following the toddler’s death.

    She was remanded in custody to appear at Kaitaia District Court on September 9.

  • Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

    Larry Baldock

    Larry Baldock

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
    Parliament,
    Wellington

    26 August, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister,

    As you are aware I have led and organised the recent Citizens Initiated Referendum on the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act that has given all New Zealanders a chance to voice their strongly held views on a controversial subject. This was only possible because of the support given by a marvellous group of volunteers who gave their time and resources freely.

    An important part of that group, at least in the first months of the campaign, were many of your Caucus members who strongly opposed the Sue Bradford’s bill, and actively collected signatures for the petition to force the referendum.

    Given this common history in the referendum, and the very strong result, it would seem reasonable then that I may have been invited by you to discuss some proposals to address the widespread concerns of the majority of this country’s citizens.

    In contrast, I have learnt from news reports that, prior to the referendum results being announced you have been involved in discussions with those we discover now only represent just fewer than 12 percent of the Referendum vote, such as Sue Bradford and Deborah Morris-Travers. In fact it seems that advisors from the ‘Yes” vote coalition are literally crawling all over our ‘House of Representatives.’

    I shall therefore endeavour to communicate my concerns through this open letter and hope you may grant me an opportunity for personal dialogue as well.

    The final results show that 87.4 percent voted ‘No!’ This means more New Zealanders voted ‘No’ in this referendum than voted for the National party in the 2008 elections and that the turnout at 56 percent was higher than for the referendum on MMP in 1992.

    Your views about the rights of parents and your disapproval of the way the Helen Clark-led government ignored the majority opposition to the Bradford law are well known and documented. This makes your current position very difficult to understand and impossible to justify or defend.

    When you try to reassure concerned parents with your personal promises, it seems, from the outside at least, that you are falling prey to the attitude that your predecessor developed wherein she thought as Prime Minister her opinion mattered more than anyone else’s, and that it was within her power to take care of everyone.

    With all due respect John, you will not be Prime Minister forever. If you leave the Bradford law on our statutes any future government will be able to change the police and CYFS policy guidelines by executive decree, without reference to the democratically elected House of Representatives. This would render your short-term proposals aimed at giving comfort to the good parents of New Zealand null and void.

    Prime Minister, good parents do not want words of comfort they want legislative change!

    Your continued claims that the ‘law is working well’ are not enhancing anyone’s view of your comprehension of what the law was supposed to do, and what it is in fact accomplishing.

    As a parliamentarian you will know that the purpose of a bill is summed up in its ‘purpose clause’.
    It is impossible to properly evaluate whether or not the law as enacted is working well, except by reference to the purpose clause of the Bill itself.

    Sue Bradford’s purpose clause was “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”.

    Here in clause 4 of her Bill we have the purpose and the means of achieving that purpose, defined very clearly, namely to reduce violence towards children (child abuse) by abolishing the use of parental force for correction!

    The continued abuse and sickening deaths of children since the Bill was passed is proof that it is not achieving that purpose. The awful abuse continues, and Sue Bradford herself readily admits, “My bill was never intended to solve this problem”. (National Radio Dec 2007)

    So not only is the law not working, but also that lofty goal has long since been abandoned by its sponsor!

    When you claim that no good parents are being criminalised I think you are referring to ‘prosecuted’.  The police records do indicate that the numbers of prosecutions are low at this point for smacking or minor acts of discipline offences, but the truth is that every parent that continues to use a smack for correction is automatically criminalised.

    After all, wouldn’t we consider a thief a criminal once they stole possessions that were not their own, regardless of whether they were caught by the police and prosecuted? After being found guilty in court their status would then be changed to that of a convicted criminal.

    The number of prosecutions by the police of good parents is therefore not evidence of whether the law is working or not.

    The law has an effect on every good parent in this country even if a single prosecution has not been laid.

    You may not have had to deal with the circumstances created when your child comes home from school to announce that they had been informed that they should report Mummy or Daddy to the teacher if they are smacked, but many have.

    Your proposal to solve this dilemma appears to be that parents should wilfully break the law of the country, while disciplining their children for breaking the rules within the family home! This forces many parents into the awful position of a hypocritical ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ type parenting which should not be recommended by anyone, least of all the Prime Minister.

    A useful test of the efficacy of the new law might be to determine how many more prosecutions the police are bringing before the courts against real child abusers. This is because supporters of the amendment to Sec 59 constantly claim that the police were hindered from prosecuting real child abusers because the previous Sec 59 defence of reasonable force meant they could easily be acquitted. They claimed that as a result the police were not even bothering to bring charges against these criminals.

    This of course was not supported by a proper study of case law over the past 15 years, or the police statistics.

    However, if this is the justification for the new law we should have seen a dramatic increase in the number of police prosecutions for crimes against our children, given that any use of force by parents for correction is now prohibited.

    Police records and statements by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope in the last police report on the new law saying that “its business as usual for the police” clearly confirms that the law is not working in that regard.

    There is only one way in which it could be claimed the law is working, (though I cannot believe that this is what you mean), and that it is that progress is being made towards the total abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

    While prosecutions at this stage are low, the latest police report confirms that the police have issued a considerable number of warnings. What is the purpose of those warning Prime Minister? Does not a warning imply that the police have informed the traumatised family members that have just been subject to an investigation that they should not use force for the purpose of correction again, or else prosecution would likely follow. Surely that must be the case.

    Because the purpose of the law is to ultimately stop parents from using any force for the purpose of correction!

    All your promises and words of comfort are meaningless since the police are to be independent in enforcing the law in New Zealand. We have had enough of the police asking the PM whether they should prosecute or not with ‘paintergate’ and the failure to prosecute Heather Simpson over the illegal spending of taxpayer money in the 2005 elections.

    New Zealanders are not stupid and they were not confused about the referendum question. They have understood from the very beginning what Sue Bradford and her supporter’s real intentions were. Surely you are not unaware of her motives, or have you now joined with her and the UN in their plan to run our country?
    That plan was made clear in the Green party’s first press release back in 2003 when they announced they had drafted an ‘anti-smacking law’ to “stop parents physically punishing their children in line with UN demands.”

    A recent survey confirmed a reduction in the number of parents using smacking for correction, which is not surprising given that it has been a criminal offence for the last two years. Unfortunately, such a decline has not resulted in a less violent society.

    I guess this does reveal though, that the law is indeed working, but is that what you and the National party were committed to? Have you really become so aligned with Sue Bradford and the 12 percent minority of the country who view all discipline as violence, that you are pleased with this outcome?

    If so, it must be said that your party has made a flip-flop in policy between May and June 2007, without consultation with your supporters, sufficient to make the 1984 Labour government look like angels of democracy!

    Given that a recent Colmar Brunton poll showed that 90 percent of National Party voters were going to vote ‘no,’ and that the result from your own electorate was about the same, surely there are many of your loyal voters who would be shocked at the change in your views on parenting?

    One of the things that made a positive impression on me, when I discussed with you how you would vote on the Prostitution Law Reform Act back in 2003, was that you said that when you were made aware of your electorates’ opposition to the proposed bill, you felt you were obligated to represent them and vote against the law.

    Surely you have not abandoned your principles in just a few short years?

    Prime Minister I have no personal interest in becoming your enemy, but I will speak up on behalf of 87.4 percent of Kiwis who voted ‘No’.

    Many of these people feel they have lost all hope of being heard by politicians in their own country. As my wife and I criss-crossed the country many times over the 18 months in which we collected signatures to force the referendum, we encountered a great deal of despair and distrust towards parliamentarians. Having been one myself, this saddened me a great deal.

    I know that most MPs generally work hard and try to do what they can to make New Zealand a better place.

    However, we both know that most Kiwis do not evaluate their MPs on the basis of their daily activities but on events like this, when there is a clear choice to be made between listening to the wishes of the people or following ones own ideas or political agenda.

    Given the current political landscape where both the Government and the ‘Queens Loyal Opposition’ MPs in this country are refusing to listen to the voice of the people and stand up for democracy, it is entirely possible that you may be able to disregard this referendum and survive politically for a few more years.

    I am absolutely convinced however, that you will do almost irreparable harm to our democracy, and strike a deep wound in the hearts of so many of your countrymen and countrywomen.

    I humble urge you to reconsider your current position,

    Yours sincerely

    Larry Baldock