Tag: Elections

  • Critique of the so-called ‘anti-smacking law’

    Critique of the so-called

    ‘anti-smacking law’.

    Old Section 59:

    Every parent of a child and…every

    person in the place of the parent

    of a child is justified in using

    force by way of correction

    towards the child, if the force

    used is reasonable in the

    circumstances.

    New Section 59:

    Parental Control

    (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 disuptive

    behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily

    tasks that are incidental to good

    care and parenting.

    (2) Nothing in subsection

    (1) or in any rule of

    common law justifies the

    use of force for the

    purpose of correction.

    (3) Subsection (2) prevails

    over subsection (1).

    (4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

    Analysis:

    Subsection 4 is what is known as the ‘Key’ amendment because John Key proposed this amendment as a way, it is claimed, to make the law more acceptable to people and, it is said, to give police discretion in regards to whether they laid a charge or not. Three things regarding this amendment:

    1. The use of force to correct a child is said to be an ‘offence’. This term is used twice in the amendment. If one commits an offence which is a criminal offence – which the use of force against a child for the purpose of correction is according to this law – then the person who commits the offence is a criminal. The offence is an offence whether or not anyone knows about it, and regardless of whether or not a charge is made against the offending person for it. (A thief is a thief whether they’re caught and charged or not!)
    Consequently, the use of force for the purpose of correction under this law is by definition a criminal offence, and thus anybody who uses any force to correct a child is by definition a criminal. John Key/National acknowledge this in the amendment by the use of the word ‘offence’, and so did not moderate Bradford’s bill in the slightest with the amendment as they claim. Parents are still criminals if they use any force whatsoever for correction of their children, which is precisely what Bradford’s bill did all along without the ammendment.

    2. What this amendment did do was to add stupidity to perversity, in that right in the law itself, it was said that under some circumstances the law did not need to be enforced. Whoever heard of making a law which is not meant to be enforced? This is stupid. Why make the law? Laws are meant to be enforced!

    3. The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. With all due respect, this also is nonsense. The correction of children is meant to be consequential! It is meant to produce a consequence, a change of behavior. So what this is saying is that if the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!

    So Nationals claim, as was said to me by a National MP, that the amendment vastly improved the bill, is nonsense.

    One of the things that were said ad nauseam by Bradford and supporters up until the passing of the bill, was that ‘reasonable force’ was used as a cover for abuse, a legal means which was used by child abusers who were brought to court, to evade conviction. Over a period of 10 years, 15 or so cases of appeal to Section 59 as a defense were made, and in half of the cases, those charged were found guilty, so the claim by Bradford etc hardly holds. When the old S59 was used in a spurious way in a case – as Bradford and Co falsely implied happened a lot, the court understood this and prosecuted if necessary.

    Now regarding ‘reasonable force’:
    Force is not defined in this law. Nor is the word ‘physical’ used as descriptive or defining of the force. Nor is the force said to be smacking. The word smacking is not anywhere in the bill.

    Force however is defined in the Crimes Act in one place, as found below. This definition was the definition that always defined the ‘force’ in S59 of the Crimes Act. S59 was in the Crimes Act so as to provide parents with exemption from precisely this very definition being applied to them. This exemption was there because the correction of children was understood to be a necessary and indeed a primary role of parenting. With the new S59 having removed the protection parents had from using force for the purpose of correction, this definition below is what now applies to them – without any sort of mitigation – in all those situations where parents apply any force for the purpose of correction.

    Crimes Act, Section 2, defines assault thus:

    2. Interpretation –

    “Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

    As can be seen in highlighted sections of the two versions of Section 59 at the top – the old and new, virtually all of the original S59 was included in the new S59. Critically, all the parts of the old S59 that were criticised by Bradford and co as providing the legal grounds for parents to abuse their children, are retained in the new S59! However, in the old S59 there was only one ground allowed for the use of reasonable force – the force was to be for correction, whereas in the new S59 there are four grounds where reasonable force – exactly the same term – is allowed.
    And not only were the allowable grounds expanded from one to four, within each of those four there are a myriad of possibilities available for parents to ‘abuse’ their children.
    So, if ‘reasonable force’ under the old law gave cover for people to abuse children, the new law has expanded that cover to give a vastly increased number of opportunities for abuse to occur! This shows clearly that it is not ‘force’, nor even ‘reasonable force’, that Bradford etc were against, but correction. They obviously do not want children to be corrected. If you ask why would they not want children corrected, I would say that is a very good question, and I think I know the answer.

    Now in regard to Section 1:
    Parts (a) through (c) all describe the type of behaviour by children, which parents traditionally would have corrected by the use of force. In other words, in the past, not only would parents have stopped the behaviour occurring, but they would have sought by means of correction to have stopped that behaviour being repeated. Now however, under the new S59, all the parent is allowed to do is to stop the behaviour occurring, but not correct the behaviour so that it does not occur again. Why were the people who voted for this bill, so intent on stopping the correction of behaviour? What do they have against correction?

    In regards to part (d), reasonable force is allowed for the performing of the ‘normal daily tasks that are ‘incidental’ to good care and parenting’.
    I would suggest that the correction of children is the very opposite of being incidental to good parenting. The term ‘incidental’ means ‘secondary’, ‘of less importance’, ‘of minor consequence’, ‘occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation’. Thus if I am right in saying that correction is the opposite of being incidental to good parenting, then correction is not secondary but primary, is of more importance rather than of less importance, is of significant consequence as opposed to being of minor consequence, and occurs as a result of intention and calculation, as opposed to resulting from chance or without intention or calculation.

    The law thus says that reasonable force is allowed for those parts of parenting which are of little consequence, but not for those parts of parenting which are of great consequence. This is utter madness.

    Written by Renton

  • Another Smacking Poll – Same Response

    MEDIA RELEASE

    29 September 2008

    Another Smacking Poll – Same Response

    Family First NZ says that the NZ Herald poll showing 86% opposition to the anti-smacking law is further proof that the law is fundamentally wrong and should be changed.

    “This is not 86% of NZ’ers who want to ‘thrash and beat’ their children as was suggested by the prime minister last year,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “This is simply NZ’ers saying that a law supposedly designed to tackle child abuse should not end up targeting good parents raising great kids.”

    “Appropriate smacking for the purpose of correcting, training and teaching should never be a crime exposing parents to possible police investigation and CYF intervention.”

    “The law is fundamentally flawed because it fails to deal with the problem it was supposed to – child abuse – and implicates law-abiding parents in the process.”

    The latest poll follows a string of similar polls in 2008 including:

    u 74% parents should be able to smack Research International Feb 2008

    u 85% want law changed to allow light smacking Curia Research – poll commissioned by Family First May 08

    u 85% anti-smacking law should be scrapped TVNZ Website poll June 08

    u 81% say there should be referendum on smacking legislation at this year’s election NZ Herald Poll 25 June 2008 Total Votes: 4624

    u One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective? No 87% Unsure 7% Yes 7% Littlies Magazine online poll July 2008

    “The guarded support for the ‘compromise’ amendment is parents simply hoping that the police may use some common sense in applying this flawed law. Yet evidence has shown that this is not the case, and many parents are more concerned about the way CYF are using the law for unwarranted intervention in good families.”

    “The message is loud and clear to the politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie. “We don’t need a costly referendum to tell us what we already know. Simply change the law so that good parents are not criminalised, and then start targeting the real causes of child abuse including drug and alcohol abuse and family breakdown.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

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

  • Don’t Vote Greens

    Andy Moore has set up Don’t Vote Greens. He has just  posted this video.

  • Family Integrity #430 — The Kiwi Party’s 1st Fifteen – policies, LIVE on Youtube!

    25 September 2008 Family Integrity #430 — The Kiwi Party’s 1st Fifteen – policies, LIVE on Youtube!

    Dear All,
    For your information.
    Craig Smith

    The Kiwi Party’s 1st Fifteen – policies,

    LIVE on Youtube!

    Click on links below to view Gordon

    Copland, MP, addressing policy.

    Feel free to ‘cut and paste and pass along’ the information in this email to those on your mailing list, or to any web discussion groups you are on, or simply forward to others.

    Or, if talking to others, tell them to type ‘Kiwi Party’s 1st 15′ in the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) search box to access all videos.

    No 1

    Length – 03:17

    Repeal of the ‘anti-smacking law’, and establishing a Royal Commission to investigate family breakdown.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnjZZvJWUkk

    No 2

    Length – 02:57

    Establishing lower thresholds for, and making referenda binding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NnbXxIKRWI

    No 3

    Length – 02:57

    Repeal of law legalizing and legitimizing prostitution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjT60cD1tFo

    No 4

    Length – 04:48

    Abortion

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRPexIOkDqc

    No 5

    Length – 04:03

    Increase minimum wage to $15/hr and provide tax credits to employers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5HpcY2GHpM

    No 6

    Income splitting for married couples, and GST off Rates.

    Length – 02:47

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ngvc_KuD8

    No 7

    Length – 03:42

    Housing affordability.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NeA6K7Az_s

    No 8

    Length – 03:12

    Promoting and aiding strong marriages and families.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xFOD1cG93w

    No 9

    Length – 02:30

    Education – funding follows students.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXAl4IE4C8A

    No 10

    Length – 03:19

    Alcohol and drugs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsr6U8ZGZE

    No 11

    Length – 03:03

    Justice – Law and Order – Victim Restoration to become primary focus of sentencing, plus longer, non-parole sentences for serious crime.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYHc-YmMpgo

    No 12

    Length – 02:22

    Health and hospital waiting lists…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeqtW_2UhDE

    No 13

    Length – 04:46

    Right of access to outdoors, and total ban on 1080.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWOe_xtv_FE

    No 14

    Length – 04:07

    Immigration.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w1Ax0OT408

    No 15

    Length – 05:01

    Climate change, Kyoto, and the Emissions Trading Scheme.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HHXVxv2EPE

  • ACT will repeal the anti-smacking legislation

    FROM:

    http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2008/09/rodneys-pearls-of-wisdom.html

    On Kiwiblog today, there was a comment that ACT were only interested in “slogans not policy”… which of course I don’t agree is true. However Rodney (what other political party leader would be bothered to write a rebuttal??) got online and posted these words of wisdom:

    I am not an expert on law and order policy. I realise its the number one job of government to keep us safe and secure from the thugs and bullies — and to back us up when we defend ourselves. I have listened to the debates in Parliament and concluded the MPs and bureaucrats have no answers, just more of the same.

    That’s why I enlisted the help of Garth McVicar of Sensible Sentencing Trust and Peter Low from the Asian Anti-Crime Group. They have helped ACT a lot with policy.

    Roger Douglas has taught me that it is not enough simply to care. You need policies that will deliver results. And people who can deliver the policy.

    That’s why we have worked so hard on this one with so many different groups. Garth has been a great help. And it was a huge bonus to be able to attract David Garret to stand at list place number five. He’s the most impressive speaker on law and order I have heard.

    A key policy is the SST’s three strikes and your out. It’s been drafted by David Garrett. It will work. We have committed an extra billion a year to keeping our streets safe.

    And no, it doesn’t include smacking. Besides, ACT will repeal the anti-smacking legislation following the referendum.

    ACT has worked hard to have credible fiscal policy. We have done the same in education. I am especially proud of the work on law and order. I know of no other party that has done the work we have or who are offering a genuine alternative this election.

    It was especially heartening to have Garth McVicar and Peter Low speak at our law and order launch.

  • Website Shows Voting Record on Family Issues

    MEDIA RELEASE

    21 September 2008

    Website Shows Voting Record on Family Issues

    http://www.valueyourvote.org.nz

    Family First NZ has today launched a website highlighting the conscience and family related bills voted on over the past 6 years, and how each MP and political party has voted.

    The website is http://www.valueyourvote.org.nz and has an accompanying pamphlet.

    “Over the past six years there have been a number of law changes voted on by our politicians specifically impacting the welfare of kiwi families, and the role of parents and marriage,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Some of these laws – like the anti-smacking law, the Care of Children Act and the ‘parental notification’ law (relating to abortion) – have undermined the important role parents play in their children’s lives.”

    “Others – like the Civil Unions Act, Relationships Act, and the lack of support for the Marriage Amendment Bill – have weakened and attempted to redefine the traditional family structure, ignoring the mass body of research which shows that family structure and marriage is hugely beneficial, not only for children, but for adults and families as well.”

    “And laws – such as the decriminalisation of prostitution, the euthanasia bill, the Easter trading laws, and Parliament’s refusal to raise the drinking age – have failed to take into account what is best for the welfare and safety of families.”

    The website allows voters to see how their local MP and each political party has voted on these important social issues.

    “Despite many of them being conscience votes, in many cases, there seems to be a ‘collective conscience’!,” says Mr McCoskrie. “But most concerning of all has been the inability of MPs to hear the wishes and concerns of NZ families – for example, surveys showed that over 70% wanted the drinking age raised to 20, approximately 83% opposed the anti-smacking bill, and over 71% believed that a parent should be informed if a girl under 16 goes to a doctor to seek an abortion.”

    “Families deserve laws that strengthen and protect them – not ones that redefine and undermine them according to politically correct ideology. We hope this record of how our members of parliament voted on important family-based legislation will help voters make an informed decision of who to vote for at Election ’08.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42