Family Integrity

Tag: Politics

  • Voters Not Confused by Referendum

    MEDIA RELEASE

    31 July  2009

    Voters Not Confused by Referendum

    Family First NZ says that the record number of registered voters for the Referendum shows that there is no confusion about the Referendum question.

    “Sue Bradford has continued her attack on democracy and Referendums by insulting NZ’ers and saying they’ll vote yes when they mean no and vice versa. But it’s quite simple really – if you oppose the anti-smacking law, vote no – if you support the anti-smacking law, vote yes. What’s hard about that?” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Even government funded groups who have attacked the question still have been able to figure out how to vote!”

    “The attempts by politicians to attack the question and to threaten to disregard the result of the Referendum has actually had the opposite effect to what they possibly intended. It has rarked up voters because they feel like it’s more of the previous ‘we know better than you and we’re not listening’ attitude. NZ’ers hoped that we had moved on from that approach.”

    “Because of this message, it is even more important that voters return their voting forms and send a strong message to the politicians on this issue.”

    “The Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 was introduced by politicians to allow NZ’ers to have a say on important issues. The people have met the very high benchmark set to have their say. The politicians must listen,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42


  • U4L: The referendum is now upon us

    U4L: The referendum is now upon us


    Hi All,

    Over the past few months Unity for Liberty has chosen to remain silent concerning the referendum.

    There are a few simple reasons for this, firstly, the issue has been well represented by Family First and other prominent organizations and secondly, we wanted to know exactly what we are up against (It is now very clear, our Prime Minister and the rest of the anti-smackers are singing from the same song sheet: “Tell a lie long enough and everyone will start believing it”).

    The Prime Minister also referred to the Referendum question as something out of Dr Seuss. Should we remind him about the story of the Emperor’s invisible clothes, where those who were told that they could not see it were ignorant. In this case, if we don’t understand the how badly worded the question is, then we too must be ignorant.

    I am tired of having my intelligence insulted, ARE YOU?

    Here’s the problem with the question: for many years (and at tax payers expense) those with a political agenda for social engineering have been promoting the lie that a smack as part of good parental correction is assault. They realize that the referendum question undermines that untruth and it’s associated brainwashing.

    Clearly, attacking the wording of the question is just a disparate attempt to divert the focus away from real issue and create confusion. The real agenda was never about combating child abuse (since admitted by Sue Bradford),  but by confusing good parental correction as assault they are then able to (by law) remove Parental Authority away from the parent, thus, by default, that very same authority then goes to the “STATE”.

    The referendum question is not badly worded, it is only guilty of undermining the very heart of the uprising Socialist Ideology within New Zealand.

    Here’s our problem, mainstream New Zealand knows their mind on this issue, we just need to remind them to vote. Over the next few weeks, we need to provide a presence within our own local communities so to encourage folk to return their voting papers.

    We invite you to join with us and deliver as many pamphlets as possible within our own neighborhoods,  We will also be setting up tables again encouraging folk to vote.

    Go to “VOTE NO” for pamphlets and other information http://www.voteno.org.nz/

    Against all the odds, it was people power that brought us success with the petition, and with a little more effort we can also bring a successful and proper conclusion to the referendum.

    If anyone is unsure on how to reach your local community, please feel free to contact myself for encouragement.

    Thank You,
    Craig Hill
    021746113
    http://www.unityforliberty.net.nz

    Remember, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing“ (Edmund Burke 1729-1797)

  • DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=122aa520f2a4cb0d&mt=application%2Fpdf

    DEATH OF THE ADULT – THE IMPACT OF POP CULTURE ON MODERN SOCIETY AND THE REPEAL OF S59
    KEAH? – HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WHEN GOOD BECAME BAD!
    By Stephen Dol NZCBC, Research Analyst.
    stephen.dol@thinkingezy.co.nz
    Michael Jackson sung the song “Bad”, which really meant “Good”. That’s confusing and so is the opposition to the referendum. To clarify this it is important to highlight two separate issues in the debate – 1) dysfunctional violent abuse and 2) the purpose of authority within a family to govern and when necessary, enforce. The confusion has been created by the violent abuse lobby who have merged the assumption that physical discipline to correct boundary and  behaviour encroachments is dysfunctional violent abuse, which it is not.
    The question is…
    Let’s use the dictionary definition for abuse i.e. “to treat badly”. The question then becomes “Is physical discipline bad treatment of a child”. To answer this we need to assess the outcome, i.e. how well will a child who is loved and  disciplined transition into adulthood as a responsible balanced citizen? and what is the effect of a smack on this transition? The outcome shows the violent abuse theory to be out of kilter with reality, regarding boundaries and behaviour development, in caring homes. Why? Because till now, too many kids coming from these homes are succeeding in life. To spurn the collective wisdom and observations of hundreds of generations of families is to say that they got it wrong. This is crazy talk.
    The ugly picture
    What constitutes abuse, are cases such as Nia Glassie, the Kahui twins and similar reports. There is no question about these delinquent, evil and wicked cruelties and they must be dealt with. But this is not what the authority to govern in a family is about and the examples given are tactical manipulation because they muddy relatively clear waters.
    Our beloved schools
    What ever the view you take, the school system is the best recent example of what happens when the authority to govern is removed from the governing body. This happened in the 1980’s and almost 30 years later we are clearly seeing the effect of that change. The DomPost (24 June 2009) reported in the article “Mother punches school head”, that there were 6995 violent incidents this last year by students in schools, of which 815 were inflicted on teachers, (part of the governing body). On top of this there is no account for the daily foul gestures, verbal, manipulative, behavioural and psychological abuses. The report went on to say, “…fortunately these events are relatively  infrequent”. I don’t know about you, but 41 acts of violence per school day (5 directed at teachers) is not infrequent. The mechanisms for dealing with it are toothless (ask your teenage college kids or other students, I did. They think it is a joke). In today’s pop culture, violence in schools seems to be considered normal and par for the course of being a teacher. The estimated cost of this abuse to the tax payer, is $6.2m per year in ACC claims and medical costs (this does not account for expenses associated with the violence such as lost teaching time, counselling and time wasted dealing with the problem or the families who are unable to control their kids). This rouses no reaction, disgust or shame from the “yes” vote referendum campaigners, yet we are asked to shoulder this burden, every year without complaint. Is this right?
    A parking lot at home
    Worse than this, the school experience has been permanently embed in law with regard to family governance and that is discouraging and outrageous. We can expect in due course that the school experience will park itself in our homes, as the tweenies, twitters and tweeties enjoy the protection of the enforcement arm of the law to freely in some cases, turn their violence on their parents. In others to roam unrestrained in their anti social behaviours. Why? Because central government does not appreciate the effect of what has happened as a result of usurping the support the families need for authority in order to govern and enforce. Parents have a responsibility at times to enforce good behaviour in and outside their homes. The government would never dream of taking away such authority from the police and the far stronger measures of enforcement, such as pepper spray, handcuffs, tasers, riot gear, the AOS, etc. That is the real world we live in, but at the back of my head I hear the shout about alternative discipline advice. The problem is, on its own, it is not working at school and it isn’t working at home.
    The death that ended the war
    Violent abuse is a real issue. The attempt to address it however, is directed at the wrong cause. It is a social issue that has gained momentum on the back of the Culture Wars of the 1960’s & 70’s.  The DomPost (02 June 2009) reported in the article “A death (Michael Jackson) that ended the great war”, that it is now considered a war won by popular culture and its associated values.  What is popular culture? – among many other things it is: “I disregard authority; I have the rights; don’t restrain me in any way whatsoever; promises are for breaking; commitment is a big word;
    and what defines a family anyway? ”What it ought to be is: “Respect for order by respecting authority; acknowledging my responsibilities; restraining my base desires for the good of the community; making honourable commitments; action not intent; and reinforcing family structure”. The drinking age debate and the associated property, violence and sex crimes (reported DomPost 13 July 2009, “Dark side – Girls night out”) is just one of many examples of the cultural confusions we have inherited from this “victory”. The “safe everything” message is another.
    The cultural abuse instrument
    So, what about the abuse? The Cultural Revolution has become the abusive instrument (bad treatment of others) because of what it stands for and what it promotes, what it sows and what it then reaps – and that issue is not being accosted. On this basis (yes even in the absence of smacking), the issue that is trying to be addressed (abuse) is self defeated by pop cultures new moral baseline and that will go on unabated until we stop and take stock of what has happened. I suspect it will be with us for some time to come – till society can bear it no more.
    “Do as I say not as I do”
    As for the detractors of the referendum, there isn’t much to say really except, it is not enough to, “Do as I say and not as I do”. Pop culture will turn a blind eye to behaviours regarding leadership and consistency. Bill Clinton is the classic pop culture politician who demonstrated his cock up and avoidance through technicalities in his embarrassing string of public denials. Such world views make it necessary to adhere to the “Do as I say” adage. But true public leaders, in all facets of life must lead by example. Too many bear the opposite hallmark, and so they credibly can’t. By the next election numerous will have fallen – it has already begun. Not getting caught doesn’t make the erosion any less cancerous.
    Muted criticism and deflating support
    Finally John Key responded to the referendum question, leading up to the last election, by saying and I quote, “That National’s view on S59 was clear but the issue for us in this case is about democracy – the right of the people of New Zealand to be heard whether or not politicians like what they are being told. Helen Clark has again demonstrated arrogance with her use of a technicality to not let New Zealanders have a say on the matter”. The question now is, has John Key been poisoned by the same political wine and become drunk too, with that power? He stood shoulder to shoulder with the detractors, to mute the descent and deliberately deflating the support for the referendum by saying “We don’t plan to change anything anyway”. How discouraging for confidence in the democratic process of this country. The recent folic acid in bread reports demonstrates how stupefied and impotent central government has become. The government can’t even resist the demands of another country. They have been hijacked by cretins who are more interested in bureaucratic participation in the meddling of foreign nations in our affairs, than they are in the interests of the people they govern.
    Let Right be Done
    Now we all have to decide and choose. I have said before “Let Right Be Done”. It needs to happen now. It’s time to start the process of taking back our country from this new breed of Monarchy and Lords. – It seems that “No” might still be in fashion after all.

    © July 2009, Stephen Dol. All rights reserved.
    You are free to disseminate this document provided it is cited in context and due credit is given to the author.

  • Police admit they may prosecute for smacking cases initially considered “reasonable force in the circumstances”

    FROM:

    http://www.big-news.blogspot.com/

    Police admit they may prosecute for smacking cases initially considered “reasonable force in the circumstances”

    Police have not ruled out prosecuting a parent who lightly – and with reasonable force – smacks their child, despite proponents of a law change on smacking saying it will never happen.

    Prior to 2007, if a parent was taken to court because they smacked their child, they were able to use a defence of reasonable force – and if that corrective action was minor, they would be acquitted. Currently,should that same parent be taken to court for the same action, that parent could have a criminal conviction as there is currently no defence in law for actions undertaken for the purpose of correction.

    Proponents of the law change say Police will not prosecute light smackers. Police, on the other hand, say it may well happen, adding the younger the child is, the more likely it is to happen. Police cannot say if a smacking prosecution – and there have been a few lately – would be of a kind that could have been successfully defended under the old law. As it happens one case in the last quarter was discharged without conviction, meaning Police thought it in the best interest to prosecute, but the court did not. One parent was prosecuted in July 2008 and subsequently convicted for smacking. That parent may well not have a criminal record had she been charged just over two years ago.

    This means that a smacker has been convicted under the new legislation. Yet the legislation has not prevented one child from being abused.

    However some events that are prosecuted as “minor acts of physical discipline” would generally be seen as outside what is considered reasonable in the circumstances. It is now the job of the police to determine this. However, police do not preclude reasonable smackers being charged for assault under a minor act of physical discipline either; all such prosecutions have progressed through the court system or the offenders are on bail.

    The way that Police are applying discretion is confirmation that Parliament has abdicated its responsibility in lawmaking. We do not elect a parliament to pass policy via an Act of parliament. Not only does parliament want police to do its job – make law – in deciding to use factors outside legislation in decisions to prosecute, parliament wants Police to do the courts job,in deciding what is reasonable in the circumstances under the guise of “no public interest to prosecute”. However, only for correction. In case of smacking for other purposes a reasonable force defence can be raised.

    If police get it wrong on correction, there is nothing the accused can do about it other than appeal.

    Labels:

    posted by Dave at 5:31 PM

  • Yet More Government Funding for Opposing Referendum

    MEDIA RELEASE

    6 July 2009

    Yet More Government Funding for Opposing Referendum

    Family First NZ says that government funded organisations are working and spending overtime pushing the anti-smacking law, attacking the Referendum, and promoting a yes-vote.

    “Following on from the Families Commission last week, and ongoing lobbying from the Children’s Commissioner and government-funded groups like Barnardos and Plunket, the latest example is the Human Rights Commission who admitted today that they funded a legal opinion to try to validate their support for the anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “They also labeled the Referendum as ‘flawed’ and ‘meaningless’.”

    “Once again, this makes a complete sham of claims by the government that the Referendum won’t make any difference, yet the law change, an answer to the Referendum, and attempts to undermine the process are being promoted by government organisations – and being paid for by taxpayers.”

    “But groups such as Family First NZ and many others who oppose the law and promoting a No-vote are limited to the $50,000 maximum spending limit set under the CIR Act and have to raise it through donations from individuals and families concerned by this issue.”

    “The spending limit is penalising groups who oppose the anti-smacking law, but taxpayer-funded groups are spending like there’s no recession!”

    Ironically, in response to a formal complaint by Family First NZ that the anti-smacking law is vague and uncertain, the Human Rights Commission acknowledged the potential uncertainty of the law but said they were not convinced that the earlier version of section 59 ‘provided any better guidance than the present legislation’.

    Mr McCoskrie says that recent research by Curia Marketing Research found widespread confusion about the effect of the law. 55% of the respondents said that smacking was always illegal, 31% said it wasn’t, and 14% didn’t know. A recent Families Commission report showed that immigrant families are confused by the anti-smacking law and see smacking as a viable option for correcting their children.

    “The Referendum is being dismissed by the government yet there’s no shortage of cheques being signed to determine a favourable outcome to the politicians,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42


  • Prime Minister’s claims of referendum question confusion are really confusing!!!

    “John Key has recently adopted the simplistic tactic of trying to discredit the referendum by complaining about the question being confusing, but the only person that is confused seems to be himself,” said Kiwi Party Leader Larry Baldock.

    “He seems to have forgotten that when the petition was first launched March 1st, 2007 National party MPs were very involved in helping us to collect signatures. Many of them even had the petition in their electorate offices at various places across the country. If they thought the question was confusing why would they help to collect signatures to make the referendum become a reality?
    “And would they have done this without the knowledge and approval of John Key?

    “Unfortunately once the anti-smacking law had been passed after John Key’s amendment deal with Helen Clark the National MPs were told they were no longer allowed to collect signatures.

    “The Prime Minister has often said he didn’t want good parents criminalised for a light smack.
    Prime Minister they now are, so do you want it to remain that way or not? Answer ‘Yes’ if you do, and ‘No’ if you don’t. It is really that simple!

    “The high response or 25,000 people responding in just two weeks to enrol or update their enrolment with the electoral enrolment centre shows that unlike John Key and Phil Goff, Kiwis understand the question and are keen to have their say,” said the petition organiser, Larry Baldock.

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • Prime Minister turns down offer to call off referendum

    Email correspondence released today confirms the Prime Minister John Key turned down an offer to call off the referendum and save taxpayers money.
    Kiwi Party Leader and Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he had made a genuine offer that could have put the whole matter to rest.

    “It seems that the same man who rushed to make a compromise deal with Helen Clark and Sue Bradford in 2007 is no longer interested in finding sensible solutions,” said Mr Baldock

    On April 18th, 2007 John Key’s reported position was very clear when he said, “If Labour really believes that ‘light smacking for the purposes of correction’ will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to ‘lightly smack for the purposes of correction’.

    Last week, after fudging on the question for more than 4 years, Sue Bradford herself finally admitted on National Radio that every parent who uses a light smack or any reasonable force for the purpose of correction was now a criminal in this country, regardless of whether they are eventually prosecuted or not!

    John Key then went on to say, “The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite. For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table.”

    In May 2007 the whole nation was shocked by the news that John Key was willing to suddenly change the National party’s position on the anti-smacking law and strike a compromise deal with Helen Clark and Sue Bradford.

    I recall John Key explaining his actions then on the basis that the Anti-smacking law was a bad law, but since the Government had the numbers to pass it anyway, he felt responsible to do what he could to minimise the harm the law could cause to parents and families all over the country.

    Now that he has the power to amend the ‘bad law’ he seems to have completely changed his position and thinks his amendment has made it into a ‘good law’. In the email reply to my offer, Wayne Eagleson wrote, “As the Prime Minister has indicated publicly on a number of occasions, the government is of the view that the current law is working.”

    Perhaps the Prime Minister would take the time to explain to Glenn Groves who was recently convicted of assaulting his 7 year old son for nothing more serious than shoving him in the back, how well his amendment to the ‘bad law’ is working.

    My proposed amendments as outlined in the attached  correspondence (posted below)  would remove the criminalisation of good parents,” said Mr Baldock.

    Ends

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • Smacking poll in hands of mother

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2550600/Smacking-poll-in-hands-of-mother

    Smacking poll in hands of mother

    By NICK VENTER – The Dominion Post

    Last updated 05:00 30/06/2009
    LAST WORD: The referendum on the anti-smacking law will not go ahead if promoter Sheryl Savill withdraws her petition.

    LAST WORD: The referendum on the anti-smacking law will not go ahead if promoter Sheryl Savill withdraws her petition.

    The dark-haired, bespectacled woman talking forcefully across an outdoor table laden with scones, cake and drinks on Family First’s pro-smacking website does not have a bionic arm and cannot run faster than a speeding car. But Sheryl Savill is New Zealand’s $6 million woman.

    The mother of two and policeman’s wife will have the final say this week on whether another $6m is spent on a referendum that Prime Minister John Key says the Government will ignore.

    That is because the petition calling for a referendum on the anti-smacking law was submitted in her name.

    A spokeswoman for the chief electoral officer said yesterday that $700,000 had already been spent preparing for the August referendum and a public information campaign costing $2.2m had also begun.

    If the referendum goes ahead it will cost another $6m. However, if Ms Savill withdraws her petition before the governor-general issues the writ, the last day for which is Friday, the referendum can be cancelled.

    Family First director Bob McCoskrie and petition organiser Larry Baldock say that will not happen unless the Government agrees to decriminalise smacking.

    “The consequences of this law remaining in New Zealand are far too serious and will cost the country far more than the cost of the referendum,” Mr Baldock said.

    He said Ms Savill, who is in the United States on a family holiday, was chosen as the petition promoter because she was a mother.

    “She was concerned about the law and as a young mum felt she was prepared to put her name to it.”

    Ms Savill, 40, has asked petition organisers not to give her contact details to the news media, but her views are explained in the video produced for the Vote No website. “I’m the mum of two lovely girls and when I realised how the anti-smacking law would directly affect the way I was raising my girls I knew that I had to do something,” she says, children and friends seated nearby.

    “A light smack done in a good home that’s full of love sure isn’t child abuse.”

    Mr McCoskrie said Ms Savill’s girls were aged about eight and 11. He declined to say whether she smacked them. “I can’t answer that. I won’t answer that on her behalf. I’m not going to comment on her parenting practice. All I know is that she is supporting the law change.”

    Ms Savill, of South Auckland, works as a “communicator” for a conservative critics say Right wing evangelical organisation, Focus on the Family. Its headquarters are in the United States and it offers advice on parenting and marriage.

    Family First Comment : The Referendum is actually in the hands of the Prime Minister. 300,000-plus signatures, 80% support for amending the anti-smacking law. Only the PM can prevent a costly Referendum. And Sheryl isn’t the $9 million dollar woman. Each person who signed the petition (300k) is the $30 protester!!!

  • Woman behind smacking referendum ‘concerned’ mum

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/63271/woman-behind-smacking-referendum-039concerned039-mum

    Woman behind smacking referendum

    ‘concerned’ mum

    Mon, 29 Jun 2009

    The one woman with the power to halt the $9 million “anti-smacking” referendum is a “concerned” South Auckland married mother of two.

    A Research New Zealand survey of 481 people released yesterday found 77 percent of respondents thought the referendum was a waste of money, 18 percent supported it and 5 percent were unsure.

    Prime Minister John Key said it was up to the referendum’s instigator to decide whether to go ahead or not.

    The referendum asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”.

    Opponents of a 2007 law change, which removed the reasonable force defence in child abuse cases, want the public to vote no.

    Sheryl Savill, who is currently on a two-week family holiday in the United States and unavailable to media, works for Focus on the Family New Zealand – a member of the Vote No coalition – and is the instigator of the poll.

    “Her role as proposer is simply because of being a concerned mum”, Family First director Bob McCoskrie said.

    Mrs Savill, 40, has two daughters with her policeman husband and has worked for Focus since 2006.

    She is the programme manager for the parent education programme Drug Proof Your Kids.

    In an opinion piece for the New Zealand Centre for Political Research in August, Mrs Savill said she did not normally get involved in politics but “knew she had to do something”.

    “The government was intruding, yet again, into the lives or parents and, as a mum, I was really concerned about the impact that this type of bill would have on my family,” she wrote.

    “To remove and undermine a parent’s authority in their own home is a treacherous area for the State to wade into.”

    New Zealand needs to deal with “real causes” of child abuse, Mrs Savill said.

    Mr McCoskrie said that, “as discussed” with Mrs Savill before she left on holiday, the referendum would only be withdrawn if the law was amended.

    “The responsibility for the referendum continuing currently lies fairly and squarely with the Government.”

    The referendum has been criticised as being confusing, as some people who support the status quo may think that is what they are voting for if they tick no.

    The Government believes the law is working as intended and police are only prosecuting serious cases.

    The non-binding, citizens-initiated referendum will be held by postal ballot from July 31 to August 21.