Family Integrity

Tag: New Zealand

  • Pro-Spanking (Smacking) Studies May Have Global Effect

    Pro-Spanking Studies May Have Global Effect

    Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 11:11 AM

    By: Theodore Kettle

    Two recent analyses – one psychological, the other legal – may debunk lenient modern parenting the way the Climategate e-mail scandal has short circuited global warming alarmism.

    A study entailing 2,600 interviews pertaining to corporal punishment, including the questioning of 179 teenagers about getting spanked and smacked by their parents, was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    Gunnoe’s findings, announced this week: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.”

    Those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

    Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.

    A key focus of the work of Jason M. Fuller of the University of Akron Law School was Sweden, which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline and is in many respects “an ideal laboratory to study spanking bans,” according to Fuller.

    Since the spanking ban, child abuse rates in Sweden have exploded over 500 percent, according to police reports. Even just one year after the ban took effect, and after a massive government public education campaign, Fuller found that “not only were Swedish parents resorting to pushing, grabbing, and shoving more than U.S. parents, but they were also beating their children twice as often.”

    After a decade of the ban, “rates of physical child abuse in Sweden had risen to three times the U.S. rate” and “from 1979 to 1994, Swedish children under seven endured an almost six-fold increase in physical abuse,” Fuller’s analysis revealed.

    “Enlightened” parenting also seems to have produced increased violence later. “Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.”

    Since Sweden, dozens of countries have banned parental corporal punishment, like Germany, Italy, and in 2007 New Zealand, where using force to correct children entails full criminal penalties, and where a mother cannot even legally take her child’s hand to bring him where he refuses to go.

    The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, meanwhile, challenges laws permitting any physical punishment of children and has called on all governments in the world to prohibit every form of physical discipline, including within the family.

    In the U.S., the National Association of Social Workers has declared that all physical punishment of children has harmful effects and should be stopped; social workers are being trained to advocate against physical discipline when they visit homes. And in 2007, San Francisco Bay area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber unsuccessfully proposed legislation imposing a California state ban on spanking children under the age of four.

    Contrary to popular belief, the pediatrician and leftist political activist Dr. Benjamin Spock did not popularize parental leniency. In early editions of his famously bestselling book, “Baby and Child Care,” Spock did not rule out spanking, (although he did later); on the contrary, Spock called for “clarity and consistency of the parents’ leadership,” considered kindness and devotion to be a necessity for parents who spank, and believed that the inability to be firm was “the commonest problem of parents in America.”

    Spock’s 21st century disciples, however, depart from his original precepts. DrSpock.com, which “embodies the strength and identity of world-renowned pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, providing parents with the latest expert content from today’s leading authorities in parenting,” and embraces Dr. Spock’s “philosophy and vision,” declares that “Punishment is not the key to discipline.”

    The parental guidance website contends that “Spanking teaches children that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right.” DrSpock.com concludes that “The American tradition of spanking may be one reason that there is much more violence in our country than in any other comparable nation.”

    Of like mind is the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose official policy says: “Despite its common acceptance, spanking is a less effective strategy than timeout or removal of privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.”

    The academy adds: “The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.”

    “Timeout,” a widely popularized alternative to physical discipline in which a child is separated from a situation or environment after misbehaving, was devised in the 1960’s by behavioral researcher Arthur Staats as “a very mild punishment, the removal from a more reinforcing situation.”

    Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.

    Nor is she alone in her conclusions. Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.”

    She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.

    As in climate change, politicians all over the world seem out of touch with the most rigorous science regarding parental discipline. The newest research could constitute powerful ammunition to parents rights activists seeking to reverse the global trend of intrusive governments muscling themselves between the rod and the child.

    From:

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

  • Should politicians have to listen to you?

    Please feel free share this information

    OPEN LETTER

    DEMOCRACY

    Should politicians have to listen to you?

    The politicians have a bad track record with citizen’s initiated referendums..

    o          In 1999, 82% of NZ’ers said the number of MP’s should be reduced to 99 – the politicians ignored it

    o          In 1999, 92% of NZ’ers said that the needs of victims should have greater emphasis, restitution and compensation should be provided, and there should be minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offences – in response, the politicians reduced parole eligibility to 1/3’rd of sentences, instructed judges to impose the least restrictive sentence, and have made unenforceable token gestures towards victims

    o          In 2009, 87.4% said that a smack for the purpose of correction should not be a crime under the law – the politicians ignored it

    o          And some people believe that we need a referendum on the proposed Auckland ‘Supercity’ because of the major changes it makes to the form of citizen representation.

    It’s about time the politicians got the message!

    As you know, we are working with businessman Colin Craig on the March for Democracy www.themarch.co.nz

    Colin Craig has been quoted as saying that he finds it “ deeply disturbing that such a clear message from the people of this country to government has been ignored. My forefathers fought for a democracy and in a democracy the government does not pass and retain laws that nearly 90% of the people don’t want. It is my turn to help fight for the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.”

    Colin isn’t just talking. He’s putting his money where his mouth is. And we need to get in behind him.

    As you can see, the purpose of this March goes even further than just the anti-smacking law. When NZ’ers and families speak with such a loud and united voice, as they have on these issues, the politicians must not be allowed to ignore them. It is significant that politicians are willing to accept democracy when it is to their benefit (i.e. getting elected!) but are willing to blatantly ignore it when suits their political agenda.

    The March is not a one-off – it is part of a long term strategy to bring representative democracy back to NZ

    Ironically, it appears that political parties are keen to accept petitions in their favour – United Future on daylight saving ,  Labour on night-classes – and they also support Referendums – National on MMP , Labour on the Auckland SuperCity , and the Greens on the Monarchy – but when it’s a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum, they suddenly go deaf!

    When the law was passed in 1993 allowing referendums to be initiated by the people, senior National MP Sir Doug Graham said “..it will be obvious that, if the public overwhelmingly supported a proposition contained in a referendum, clearly it would have great persuasive weight and any Government that simply ignored it would do so at its peril .”

    PLEASE MARK 1.30pm SATURDAY 21 NOVEMBER (meeting at the bottom of Queen St Auckland) IN YOUR DIARY – AND MARCH FOR DEMOCRACY!

    More details will be added to the website over the next couple of weeks www.themarch.co.nz

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Kind regards

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Man to face trial over alleged ‘ear flicking’

    This is what someone said on an email discussion group:

    ‘So this is what it has come down to – a father charged with assault for flicking his kid’s ear!

    Meanwhile no-one is held responsible for the deaths of the Kahui twins.

    Is this the sort of country we want New Zealand to be?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528277&ref=rss

    Man to face trial over alleged ‘ear flicking’

    2:44PM Thursday August 21, 2008

    The Smacking Debate

    The Christchurch man accused of assaulting his two young sons will face trial.

    In January, Jimmy Mason claimed he was harassed by the police when he was spotted publicly disciplining his four-year-old son.

    He claims he only flicked the boy’s ear and that witnesses, including a teacher and an off-duty police officer, overreacted.

    Mason was then charged with assaulting both his two sons, aged two and four.

    A short depositions hearing took place in the Christchurch District Court this morning at which all the evidence was presented in written form. The media was not permitted to access the evidence.

    Four witnesses will give evidence in Mason’s trial, for which a date is yet to be set.

    – NEWSTALK ZB

  • New Zealand continues to follow Sweden

    From Family First NZ Media Release:

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/eight-smacking-prosecutions-in-six-month-period/

    “According to the Police Executive Meeting 6 Month Review papers, there have been no prosecutions for ‘smacking’, but the paper (Official police papers) says that “eight ‘minor acts of physical discipline’ events against children were prosecuted with six yet to be resolved.”

    This is what Ruby Harrold-Claesson informed us back in March 2007 about Sweden

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2007/emails-from-ruby-harrold-claesson/

    March 2007

    [4] – “There has been no increase in the number of parents drawn into the Swedish criminal justice system for minor assaults in the past 25 years.”

    Rebuttal: Before 1978 no parent would have been drawn before the police and prosecutor like the priest who had slapped his 16-yr old daughter. (See Case 1 in my Case Law). Deborah Coddington quoted Prof. Christian Diesen in her article “Anti-smack campaign fails to pack a punch”, (http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/author/story.cfm?a_id=271&ObjectID=10393619). Diesen said that there are “7000 reports of child abuse per year in Sweden, but only 10 % are prosecuted.” These are statistics from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
    Diesen says “only 10% are prosecuted.” He wants to see more prosecutions – even if the parents should be found not guilty.

    Recent statistics show that there are 11 000 reports of child abuse per year in Sweden and that there has been a 14% increase between 2005 – 2006. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00378.htm

  • Parents Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0808/S00017.htm

    Parents Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    Saturday, 2 August 2008, 4:07 pm
    Press Release: Family First

    MEDIA RELEASE

    87% Of Parents of Young Children Reject Anti-Smacking Bill

    Family First NZ says that the Littlies website poll which found that 87% of parents of young children don’t think the anti-smacking law is effective is confirmation that NZ’ers have soundly rejected the law change and its time the politicians listened and changed it.

    The www.littlies.co.nz poll asked “One year on, do you think the anti-smacking Bill has proved to be effective?” 87% said No, and a further 7% were unsure. Only 7% said it was effective.

    According to their website, Littlies Magazine is the country’s fastest growing and only monthly parenting magazine. They reach more families with children 0-5 years than any other parenting magazine in New Zealand (81,000 families).

    “This is the voice of kiwi parents. The opposition to the anti-smacking law is just as strong as it was when it was first pushed by the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and follows on from other polls which have recorded similar opposition.”

    A Research International poll in February found that 74% parents believed it should be legal to smack; a Family First commissioned poll in May found that 85% wanted the law changed to allow light smacking; a TVNZ website poll in June found that 85% wanted the anti-smacking law scrapped; and a NZ Herald poll in June found that 81% wanted a referendum on the smacking legislation at this year’s election.

    “The anti-smacking lobby has tried to argue that NZ’ers have changed their mind on the legislation and that the 390,000 NZ’ers who signed the petition were either misled or have changed their mind. These arguments have been found wanting and smack of desperation,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “It’s time to tackle the real causes of child abuse, violence and crime without criminalising the efforts of good parents raising productive and law-abiding citizens of the future.”

    “NZ can lead the world by being the first country to reverse this flawed law before its effects are fully felt by families and the community,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

  • Muriel Newman: Moral Neutrality

    h

    ttp://www.nzcpr.com/weekly139.htm

    Parliament

    20 July 2008
    Moral Neutrality

    Earlier this month Britain’s culture of “moral neutrality” came under attack. In a speech in Glasgow, Conservative Party Leader Rt Hon David Cameron said that the obese, drug addicts and the poor have no-one to blame but themselves.

    He defined moral neutrality as the refusal to make judgements about what is good or bad, right or wrong: “We as a society have been far too sensitive. In order to avoid injury to people’s feelings, in order to avoid appearing judgemental, we have failed to say what needs to be said. Instead we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong. These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more. Refusing to use these words – right and wrong – means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice”.

    He went on to say, “We talk about people being “at risk of obesity” instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather. Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make”.

    David Cameron believes that there is now a very real danger of Britain becoming “a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop”. To read the speech click the sidebar link>>>

    The parallels with New Zealand are surely plain for all to see. We have now become so non-judgemental that speaking the truth and calling a spade a spade, all too often leads to complaints to the Human Rights Commission – not to mention the Press Council, the Advertising Standards Authority, and all of the other organisations that sit in judgement on such matters.

    The danger is that human rights laws, which were originally introduced under the guise of protecting individuals from discrimination, impinge on the most basic human right of all – individual freedom. Under the Labour government, human rights arguments have been used to impose the political agendas of favoured minority groups onto the public at large to the extent that, for example, Maori cultural beliefs now dominate the New Zealand education curriculum1 and sexual orientation has ceased to be a private matter but – with a question on sexual orientation being planned for the census – one in which the state has a particular interest.2

    According to the prevailing culture of political correctness that has developed during Labour’s regime, nothing is anyone’s fault anymore. If you are too lazy to work, the government will pay you to stay at home; if you are one of the 5,279 drunks and druggies drawing a benefit, the government will contribute $1 million a week to keep your habit going 3; if you are a teenage girl with little education and no career prospects, the government will pay you to bear and raise the next generation of children; if you are grossly obese, the government will pay $25,000 to have your stomach-stapled.4

    Yet individuals make myriads of choices almost every moment of every day, and learning to live with the consequences of those choices is an important part of life. That’s how society operates. It is surely not the role of the state to interfere in the free choices that people make (so long as they do not harm others), nor to shield people from the consequences. To do so creates a ‘victim’ culture whereby the state rewards those who make poor choices with ever-more generous taxpayer-funded compassion.

    As John Stuart Mill said so eloquently – in defence of the freedom of individuals from the power of the state – in On Liberty in 1859, “… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”

    Society’s primary role of moral teacher – instilling in children what is good or bad, right or wrong – has traditionally been the family. Children who are given strong boundaries of what is and is not appropriate behaviour, and are imbued with a clear understanding of the consequences of the moral choices they make, generally become responsible members of society. But when parents fail to properly bring up their children, the results can be disastrous.

    Just last month the Christchurch Press told the story of a recovering drug addict: John’s drug use started at home with parents who smoked cannabis and took pills. By age nine he was drinking alcohol, and by age 11 smoking cannabis. At age 14 he started using intravenous opiate. It was all downhill after that.

    John admitted that he had committed over 500 burglaries, robberies and dishonesty offences to fund his drug habit: “I committed a lot of crime. I committed crime I’ve never been caught for over the years. I’d go out and commit burglaries four, five or six burglaries a night. Every night. Every day. Even while I was at work I’d go away at lunch time and commit a crime to support my habit that night. I was using anywhere up to $2000 daily…”

    John has five children, all girls; two of the older ones, aged 17 and 18, use drugs: “I definitely don’t want them to have the same life as I’ve had. I had a choice to say no. It’s not a sickness it’s a personal choice. For these younger generations I pray for them not to get into it.” 5

    When the Labour Government introduced the anti-smacking law last year, the vast majority of New Zealanders opposed it. Not because they condoned violence against children – no-one condones that. They opposed the smacking ban because they understand that the dynamics of family life are delicately balanced. Anyone who has raised children knows that there is a fine line between good outcomes and the abyss. And the last thing that a family needs is the heavy hand of the state interfering in private matters.

    By banning smacking, the state has now intruded deep into the heart of family life. A predictable wedge has been driven between parents and children. It has created a situation where many parents, now fearful of prosecution, are afraid to set proper boundaries for their children in case the children object and complain to the authorities. This is now inhibiting the way that parents raise their children to the point where, when the going gets tough, many parents are now throwing in the towel and passing the problem of their unruly children onto the wider community.

    In his speech, David Cameron acknowledges that the social breakdown seen in Britain is caused by family breakdown, welfare dependency, debt, drugs, poverty, poor policing, inadequate housing, and failing schools, and he warns that society, “is in danger of losing its sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and even public morality”.

    The fractures that we now see in New Zealand families and communities have deepened over the last nine years. The bonds that link our society have become weaker. The people most at risk are the vulnerable – those without an education, without a good job, without strong family supports. These are the very people that a Labour Government should have been protecting through sweeping social reforms to ensure that every child succeeds at school, that no-one is left to languish on welfare, and that family life is encouraged and supported. By failing to make the necessary reforms, Labour has entrenched disadvantage for far too many New Zealanders.

    David Cameron claims that in Britain there has been a relentless erosion of responsibility, social virtue, self-discipline, and a respect for others. He believes that the only way to turn it around is to encourage personal responsibility as a cornerstone social value.

    Encouraging personal responsibility as a cornerstone social value – as well as throwing off the stultifying political correctness that has weighed this country down for far too long – would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction for New Zealand too.

    This week’s poll asks: Do you think that a culture of “moral neutrality” has developed in New Zealand. ? Go to Poll >>>

    FOOTNOTES

    1 Muriel Newman, Selling Our kids Short
    2     Dominion, As you like it: A sexy census
    3 Waikato Times, The benefit and the doubt
    4 Dominion Post, Hundreds to get taxpayer-funded stomach stapling
    5     Christchurch Press, P makes addicts human crime waves

    If you would like to comment on this issue please click >>>

    Your Comments:

    Reader’s comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click to view >>>.

  • Muriel Newman: Rich Country – Poor Families

    http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly25.htm

    1 April 06
    Rich Country – Poor Families

    In a sense, New Zealand is one of the richest countries on earth. We have a great climate, beautiful countryside, and a more leisurely pace of life. Our people are friendly, hard working and caring. We are close to each other in a way that comes from being a small country remote from the rest of the world.

    On top of that, we have a wealth of natural resources, we are great innovators and entrepreneurs, and we have established international recognition for our creativity and achievement in a multitude of fields of endeavour.

    So why is it that so many New Zealanders have a deep-seated sense of foreboding about the future? Sure, it could be the negative growth (no economic growth recorded in the second half of last year) or the rapidly falling dollar (the Minister of Finance sent officials to Japan last year to talk the dollar down). Maybe it’s the burgeoning balance of payments deficit (foreign debt grows as the dollar falls), or the rising price of petrol (adding in today’s 1c petrol tax increase, 91 octane is expected to rise to $1.62 a litre). But I suspect that the issues that are driving that sense of gloom are much more personal.

    At the heart of the problem appears to be a growing sense of despair about the state of the New Zealand family. As a country with a strong tradition of two-parent married families, many New Zealanders feel that Labour’s interference in family matters has been detrimental. In particular, law changes introduced as part of their social engineering agenda are manifesting themselves in negative ways.

    There is a new reticence for young people to commit themselves to marriage – why bother, when de-facto relationships have the same legal privilege as marriage? Yet common sense tells us that marriage signals a commitment for life, giving young women, in particular, the promise of stability and security they need in order to begin thinking about starting a family.

    There is also a new tendency for relationships to break up just before the three-year joint property claim thresh-hold is reached. Couples who are not quite sure whether things will work out between them, are not prepared to take the risk of staying together if it means signing over half of their assets.

    With the Domestic Purposes Benefit already incentivising the massive breakdown of the family, these more recent changes are making the situation worse by giving rise to more unstable, transient relationships. It is therefore little wonder we are seeing an escalation in child abuse and domestic violence as well as the fall-out from the breakdown of stable families – marginalized fathers, alienated children, and excluded grandparents.

    Just this week, New Zealand’s top Family Court judge said that violence in the home is blighting the country’s image as a good place to raise children. Yet I do not hear the Judge – or any of the other professionals who work in this field – calling for a change to the policies that are driving this social collapse.

    And, with Labour’s new family welfare package coming into effect today, resulting in 350,000 families receiving income support, we urgently need to review the wisdom of massive government interference in the family, before more lives are damaged or lost.

    A new publication released by the British think tank Civitas this week, examines the wisdom of state interference in the family from an international perspective. In her book Family Policy, Family Changes, Patricia Morgan compares the state of the family in Sweden, Italy and Britain, and concludes that families thrive in countries where there is less government interference.

    In Britain, where an anti-marriage agenda is being strongly promoted by the public service, universities and government funded social agencies, family problems are rife, with Britain topping the league tables in several of the most worrying indicators of breakdown, including divorce and teenage pregnancy. In Sweden, where a comprehensive social engineering programme has transferred many family responsibilities to the state – to a degree unseen outside of the Soviet bloc – thereare even higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation than Britain.

    Italy, however, has effectively had no government intervention into the family, and is still the home of the traditional family unit. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, including teenage pregnancies, are extremely low. Cohabitation is so rare as to be difficult to measure. Young people live with their parents until they get married, and, for most women, marriage will represent their first living-together relationship.

    While government interference in the family is a cause of major concern, there are many other matters that are driving that feeling of despondency felt by many New Zealanders. In particular, there is an overbearing sense that things could be so much better, especially in those important areas that the government is responsible for.

    With 12,000 hospital beds and 12,000 hospital managers and administrators is the growth in New Zealand’s hospital waiting lists being caused by too much bureaucracy? Are we confident that our welfare system is working properly when we all know fit and healthy young men and women who are languishing on benefits? Would primary and secondary school education improve if vouchers were introduced in order to give parents the same choice that they currently have at pre-school and tertiary level?

    And why don’t we take a common sense approach to the small business sector – the engine room of our economy – by freeing them up from the mountains of unnecessary cost and red tape that inhibits their growth and productivity? Why not lower taxes across the board not only to boost the economy and create a competitive advantage for Kiwi businesses, but also to establish New Zealand as an attractive destination for international business?

    There is so much that can be done to solve those problems that are holding us back – as a nation that responds quickly to positive incentives, with good leadership and sensible ideas, we could really fly!

    The NZCPD guest comment this week comes from Sir Roger Douglas who outlined to the ACT Party conference last week, the importance of creating a vision for a better New Zealand (View >>>).

    Printer friendly version (PDF) View >>>

    This weeks poll. The poll this week asks do you think that the family related policies that Labour has introduced are good for the country? To take part in our online poll >>>

  • Family First: CAN YOU HELP US?

    17 Jul 2008

    CAN YOU HELP US

    ‘SLEDGEHAMMER’

    A FEW MYTHS

    Myth #1 : There have been no prosecutions under the new anti-smacking law


    FALSE

    Myth #2 : The anti-smacking law has not resulted in good parents being investigated and interrogated by the police or CYF


    FALSE

    We have evidence of a number of examples that expose these myths, including:

    * a father separated from his 2 kids for 6 months by CYF because of malicious claims by mother that he had smacked them – CYF eventually reallowed access but only due to a strong supporter who knew the system
    * a father prosecuted and convicted because of pushing the upper arm of his daughter 2-3 times and demanding she listen to her mother
    * a grandfather prosecuted and convicted because of tipping his defiant grandson out of a bean bag-type chair to get him moving
    * a father dragged through the court process only to turn up to the court case and the police to admit they had no evidence
    * a stepfather who physically restrained the arms of his stepdaughter being interrogated for 2 hours almost 7 months after the incident, and 6 months later still not knowing the outcome
    * a CYFs Community Panel Board member telling Family First “I can say without a doubt, that in my time I have seen a small but a definite increase in ‘good’ parents being investigated by our CYFs case workers – up to 5% of our cases. Any child who mentions to a school teacher that they have been smacked or touched in any physical way is brought under investigation and their names are indelibly logged onto our data base as a potential ‘abuser’ . I really feel sorry for these ‘good parents’ because of the fear that we as an organisation now engendering upon their parenting practise. Sadly good parents are being lumped in together with the really bad ones.”

    NZ’ers deserve to be told

    the truth.

    WOULD YOU CONSIDER HELPING FUND FULL PAGE

    ADS IN SUNDAY STAR TIMES and NZ HERALD

    (giving nationwide coverage)

    We need to raise $13-14,000 by the beginning of next week to achieve this.

    If you would like to invest in helping us ‘SLEDGEHAMMER THE MYTHS’

    CLICK HERE

    Every little bit helps . (All donations qualify for the 33% tax donation rebate.)

    Thanks for your support and consideration. We must do all we can to defend the role of parents and the well-being of our children and families in NZ.

    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    www.familyfirst.org.nz