Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

MEDIA RELEASE

17 January 2010

Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

“Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

“Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

“The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

“For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

“Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

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

Protect Children From Sexualisation and Abuse – Priority 2010

Friday, January 1st, 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

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

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

Reviewing the Anti-smacking law

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Reformation Testimony

The criminalisation of New Zealand parents who discipline their children biblically: Or who will you obey, God or man?

New Zealand has a new law which makes the corporal punishment of children a crime. This includes smacking them with a wooden spoon or strap. The government has commissioned two reports, both of which claim that parents are unaffected by the new law. But the reporters failed to ask even one parent how he feels about this unwarranted government intrusion into his life. On some occasions the charges brought by the police have been dismissed in court. But the police, the psychologists, the ‘welfare’ agencies and the politicians are quite happy to see parents investigated, prosecuted and punished for using corporal punishment on children. Parents are now intimidated by unruly children who threaten to report their parents to the police if a parent dare touch them. Parental authority has been undermined by this wicked legislation. A government is supposed to reward the good and punish evil (Romans 13:1-7), but in New Zealand rewards the evildoer and punishes the good. Prime Minister Key claims that parents won’t be investigated for giving a ‘light’ smack, but if there is some other connected issue, then the police will investigate. Of course what constitutes a connected issue is left unexplained. The facts are that family members have been investigated for the most trivial acts of discipline which have been redefined as assaults.

For the video response to the latest government spin go here:

www.covenantedreformation.com/#cc

Garnet Milne

Some Correction Needed, But John Key says it’s OK!

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

From Family First NZ

Some Correction

Needed



But John Key says it’s OK!


Prime Minister John Key and Nigel Latta say the anti-smacking law is working well, that there is no evidence of good parents being criminalised, that Family First has been misled by parents , and that light smacking shouldn’t be a criminal offence .

So here’s some questions:
* Why did CYF formally apologise to this family for the way they handled a smacking complaint?
CYFS says sorry to ‘traumatised’ family
NZ Herald Jul 31, 2009

* Why did this parent get prosecuted ?
‘I asked for help but instead got conviction’
NZ Herald Jul 28, 2009 A Wellington solo father says he went to Child, Youth and Family Services for help – and ended up with a conviction for smacking his daughter.

* Why was this family investigated and referred to a government agency?
School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
Sunday Star Times Oct 28 2007
* The law (and Plunket / Barnardos / Childrens Commissioner / Families Commissioner) says a smack is illegal . But John Key says its acceptable and shouldn’t be a criminal offence . Who’s correct ?
“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said. Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not ‘for the purposes of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons. “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said – Source NZ Herald
(By the way, we agree!!)
* Why didn’t the report interview and seek feedback from kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting?
* Why didn’t the report address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents , and threatening to report them to the police or CYF?
* Why didn’t the report address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents ?
* Why didn’t the report address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence policy which demands zero tolerance?
* Why didn’t the report address why so many cases of what are supposed to be serious ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments , and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all?
* Why didn’t the report address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.

WHY?
When we get some answers we’ll let you know!

But please be aware – the latest report does not answer these important questions .

Have a great week


Bob McCoskrie
National Director

http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/

Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

Law continues to be a dog’s breakfast

Monday, December 7th, 2009

The Kiwi Party
Press Release

Law continues to be a dog’s breakfast

Kiwi Party leader and Anti-smacking referendum organiser Larry Baldock called on the Prime Minister to stop wasting taxpayers money defending the indefensible!

“Let’s understand what John Key is saying,” said Mr Baldock. “He is advising parents to break the law if they want to by smacking their children if they believe that is the right thing to do. Then he spends our money setting up a special hotline for those good parents who may have some pangs of conscience about breaking the law so they can ring in for reassurance about their criminal activity.  Why not just change the law?

“All this comes after yet another report that has wasted more of our taxes, to defend a law that the PM called a dog’s breakfast.

“The truth is John Key is afraid of Sue Bradford and all her anti-smackers. He will cling to any excuse to hold the line, rather than upset a small minority that have made it clear there will be ‘hell to pay’ if they are not listened too and obeyed.

“That is why John Key said, “All I can tell you is if we went back and changed the law this is what I think would happen. There would be a very intense debate in NZ and those that are opposed to smacking could run a very ferocious campaign and at the end of that process right or wrong, some people would feel quite differently about it.” (JK Family Forum Sept 18, 2009)

“It is ironic that the majority that have followed lawful and peaceful means of protesting this crazy law are ignored, while the Prime Minister bows to those whom he thinks would engage in a very ferocious campaign!

Ends

Contact
Larry Baldock
021864833

Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Family First NZ

MEDIA RELEASE

7 December 2009

Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

Family First NZ is dismissing yet another report on the anti-smacking law which fails to address the real issues and concerns over the law change.

“This is the eighth report in just over two years on the law change. There have never been so many reports in such a short time frame on a law change in an attempt to sell it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The police have done six reports, a report from the ministry of Social Development, and now this report commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to the overwhelming rejection of the law in the recent Referendum.”

“We weren’t expecting miracles in this report because one of the panel members Peter Hughes from the MSD has only recently released a report where he admits that he cannot conclude whether the law is achieving its purpose, and he cannot conclusively say that good parents are not being criminalized or victimized by this law with unnecessary state intervention. This is primarily because he doesn’t talk to them!”

“A senior police office who examined the prosecutions of a number of parents as a result of the new law says that without exception, the public interest was not served in pursuing prosecutions.”

“In the latest report, it fails in the following areas:

  • it fails to address the concerns of kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting
  • it fails to address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents, and threatening to report them to the police or CYF
  • it fails to address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents
  • it fails to address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence police which demands zero tolerance
  • it fails to address why so many cases of what are supposed to be ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments, and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all
  • it fails to address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.”

“This report is 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. That’s what parents deserve” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director

Mob. 027 55 555 42

Related document:

Review of New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family Policies and Procedures relating to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (pdf, 1675 Kb)

The Climategate Scandal

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

The Climategate Scandal. (Part 1) 5.25 min

The Climategate Scandal. (Part 2) 3.45 min

The Climategate Scandal. (Part 3) 1.23min

Spot the difference!

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

From Family First NZ e-newsletter

Spot the difference!


6,000 bikers turned up at parliament and the government promised to act. 6,000 family members turned up in Queen St and only one politician turned up. What’s the difference? The only difference is the response!
Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz

please respond to: feedback@familyfirst.org.nz