Family Integrity #455 — Another Poll, Quick!
The Stuff media home webpage has another poll to take, simply answering the question that will be on the referendum.
Go for it:
Regards,
Craig Smith
Family Integrity
Tag: Referendum
-
Referendum
CONFUSED?
You soon will beFor the past 72 hours, politicians and commentators have screemed that the Referendum question is confusing
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”
It seems pretty clear to us! The law currently says that a good parent raising great kids who uses a light smack for the purpose of correction is committing a criminal offence – subject to a possible complaint, possible investigation and temporary removal of kids by CYF, and possible investigation and in some cases prosecution by the police. (these have all happened – view cases HERE)
But please take a quick moment to listen to this…
Green MP Sue Bradford attempts to explain the effect of the anti-smacking law to an increasingly confused National Radio’s Sean Plunket this morning Classic Confusion!!!
Try and listen to the whole thing – and then ask yourself “so what am I legally allowed to do??” (An excellent written summary by Blogger Dave Crampton HERE )Doesn’t it seem incredible that our politicians are confused by the Referendum question – yet expect parents to understand the anti-smacking law, how it will be enforced, and its effect on how they should parent.
This is why the referendum question is worded the way it is – because not even Sue Bradford knows the present answer.
And that’s why we’ll continue to fight to have it fixed.
Have a great weekend
Bob McCoskrie
National Director -
PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law
MEDIA RELEASE
17 June 2009
PM Won’t Hear Evidence He Wants On Smacking Law
Family First NZ is again asking the Prime Minister to meet with them to view cases of good parents being prosecuted under the anti-smacking law.
“In Parliament today, John Key said ‘I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work, I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.’ We have that evidence but so far the Prime Minister has refused to see it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“We have a number of cases that have been made available to us of parents being prosecuted under the new law. These have been independently examined by a senior police officer who believes that they show that the law is not working.”
“A response received this week to our Official Information Act request shows that there have been nine prosecutions under the new law in the first 15 months since the law was passed. Many of these cases have resulted in the parent being discharged without conviction, sent to a parenting course, or receiving a suspended sentence. Other parents have been referred to CYF and had children removed while an investigation takes place. This is highly traumatic for any family.”
“The Prime Minister cannot say that he has seen no evidence when he is not willing to view that evidence,” says Mr McCoskrie.
Family First is writing to the Prime Minister to again request a meeting to show the evidence.
“Once he sees these examples, he can save $9m on a Referendum, move to amend the law to protect light smacking, and establish a Commission of Enquiry to tackle the real causes of child abuse.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out
MEDIA RELEASE
17 June 2009
Bradford Referendum Bill Should be Sent to Time Out
Family First NZ says that NZ’ers have no problem understanding the Referendum question, and the claims that it is misleading and ambiguous is simply an expression of frustration from the politicians who introduced the flawed law in the first place.
“The squeals of horror coming from the politicians is not because of the question asked, but because of the answer that they come to – no!,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“The law currently states that a good parent raising great kids and who may use a smack on the bottom for the purpose of correction is to be treated under the law in the same way as a rotten parent who abuses their kids.”
“This is complete nonsense, shows a disrespect for the already difficult role of parenting, and explains why the opposition to the anti-smacking law continues to remain at such high levels.”
“NZ’ers are desparate for laws that target the real causes of child abuse – not laws that target real parents.”
“Sue Bradford’s proposal to amend the law is simply chucking the toys out of the cot in a tantrum, and the proposal should be immediately sent to ‘time out’,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate
MEDIA RELEASE
18 June 2009
PM Attempting to Shut Down Referendum Debate
Family First NZ is annoyed with comments by the Prime Minister John Key that he will ignore the results of the upcoming anti-smacking Referendum and will not be allowing Families Commissioner Christine Rankin to enter the debate.
“The Referendum is an expensive exercise made necessary because of a failure by politicians to listen to the voters,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “It is hypocritical of politicians to criticize the cost when their own actions have led to this public outcry.”
“John Key is undermining the process by suggesting that, while he will ‘listen to the public’, any law change will be subject to what he thinks.”
“It is especially ironic because while he was the leader of the Opposition he said
The Labour Government has shown utter contempt for New Zealanders and the democratic process with its plan to railroad the anti-smacking bill through Parliament. The Labour-led Government knows the measure is deeply unpopular, so it plans to act against the wishes of the majority of Kiwis and ram the bill through under urgency. This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue. Helen Clark has refused to let her MPs vote the way they really think on this bill. To ram it through under the cover of urgency shows just how out of touch her government has become.”
Family First has provided the evidence he has set as the benchmark for changing the law – that is, evidence of good families being prosecuted in court under the anti-smacking law.“It is also completely unacceptable that he is attempting to shut down debate by preventing Christine Rankin from being part of the debate. It appears that the government has adopted an attitude of ‘agree with us or don’t speak’.”
“This suggests that the new government is following down the road of the previous government – which ultimately led to its downfall – of ignoring the voice of NZ’ers and shutting down debate,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Send a message that John Key simply can’t ignore
Anti-Smacking Postal Referendum
July 31 – August 21 2009
In the first three weeks of August, NZ’ers will finally have a chance to have their say on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.
Since the Referendum was formally announced, there has been a media EXPLOSION
* Campaign begins for referendum on child discipline – The Electoral Enrollment Centre begins a campaign on Monday to remind voters to check they are enrolled for a referendum on the anti-smacking law
* Vote unlikely to bring law change – The Government is unlikely to change the anti-smacking law regardless of the result of the $9 million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says
* MP’s slate smacking poll words – Because they don’t like the answer they come to, and the effect of the law they passed!
* Leaders won’t vote in smacking poll – Neither Prime Minister John Key nor Labour leader Phil Goff will vote in the smacking referendum
* Big two coy on smacking vote – A national referendum is re-igniting debate on the anti-smacking law two years on
* Latest smacking poll – same result – Family First Media Release 17 June 09
* PM attempting to shut down Referendum debate – Family First Media Release 16 June 09Now there is the chance to tell the politicians to change the anti-smacking law so that we have laws that acknowledge and value the important role of good parents – but also demand that the real causes of child abuse are targeted.
Family First will be one of the groups speaking up and encouraging NZ’ers to vote NO!
Our plan:
* web-based and media-based
* networking by email
* media interviews
* simply presenting the factsOur need?
Simple really. We need your financial support .The ‘opposition’ has no difficulty with funding .
Groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Parents Centre, Families Commission, Children’s Commissioner , and other government-funded organisations are well funded thanks to you – the taxpayer . And they’ve been busy running seminars, websites, sending out briefing sheets to MP’s, publishing newsletters, employing staff especially for this issue, and sending out social workers far and wide pushing their message.How do they really view kiwi parents?
If you oppose the anti-smacking law as so many NZ’ers do, you’re demonised as ‘violent’, and a parent who supports ‘bashing’ and ‘assaulting’ children. These groups should hang their head in shame for labelling kiwi parents in such a way.
* Former Children’s Commissioner Ian Hassell referred to opponents to the anti-smacking law as the ‘child-beating lobby ‘
LISTEN HERE * Sue Bradford referred to Family First as the pro-violence lobby
* Barnardos spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers said in a Christchurch Press article today “.. Our views of children are perhaps a bit more modern and up to date compared to the other side of the debate …..”* but the classic quote of the week also comes from Barnardos when Morris-Travers denied the 300,000+ who signed the petition – and the poll after poll after poll that shows 80%+ opposing the law – and makes this statement about Family First
LISTEN
(By the way, this letter is being sent to you by email and will be posted on our website after I talk to my wife on my mobile !!!!)WOULD YOU CONSIDER INVESTING IN OUR voteNO CAMPAIGN?
We will not get a single cent from the government in this Referendum – unlike the opposing argument.
Every donation – large and small – will enable us to get the facts out there, and to promote the important role of parents, the welfare of children, and the real issues of child abuse.
Thanks for your consideration. Together, we can bring some sanity to this debate and demand that the real causes of child abuse are confronted.
Kind regards
Bob McCoskrie
National DirectorAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 – 1797) -
A very simple question
A very simple question
cross-posted from Big News, 14 April 2009 and http://section59.blogspot.com/ 16 April
Bill English was asked on Radio Live today whether a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction. He was asked at least six times. Here’s the transcript. It’s a classic.Radio Live Breakfast Show – 14 April 09
INTERVIEWER: The Labour Party seemed to have amended their position on Section 59, the smacking legislation. What do you think? Should a smack be allowed as part of a good – as good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, the Government’s position hasn’t changed since a compromise was done with the previous Labour Government. And the Prime Minister has said many times, as has the rest of the Government, that if there is evidence that law abiding parents are being wrong(ly)prosecuted inconsistent with the spirit of that law then we would look to change it. And has been – and there hasn’t yet been considerable enough evidence to warrant changing it.
INTERVIEWER: Well, did you think – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Well, look, I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land and needs to be enforced in a sensible way. And…
INTERVIEWER: But do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: I – I think the law, as it is, is the law of the land that should be enforced. If there is evidence that it is being enforced in instances where it’s – where it’s inappropriate because the event is
trivial or [indistinct]…
INTERVIEWER: No, no. Sorry, Minister, I just wanted to know whether you could answer that, that should – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental correction?
BILL ENGLISH: Look, it’s a matter of complying with the law of the land.
INTERVIEWER: Right, it’s a simple question, isn’t it?
BILL ENGLISH: It’s like asking whether the speed limit should be – whether you should drive at 120 kilometres an hour. The law – the law…
INTERVIEWER: Well, clearly you shouldn’t.
BILL ENGLISH: That’s right. Well, the law – the law, as it stands, is the law that should be enforced.
INTERVIEWER: Do you – do you think a smack should be allowed as part of good parental
correction? It’s simple yes or no, isn’t it?
Bill ENGLISH: Well, look, the law takes a stance about smacking and it gives the police some discretion about how they use their capacity to prosecute. If there is evidence that they are prosecuting people inappropriately, then that current government would look at changing the law.So this is the position of Bill English. Laws should be enforced. The smacking law should be complied with. A smack as part of good parental correction is against the law. There is no evidence that, quote, “law abiding parents are being wrong(ly) prosecuted”, unquote, for breaking the law when lightly smacking their kids.
What Radio Live should have asked is this: If “law abiding parents” can smack their kids for corrective purposes, how can law abiding parents be wrongly prosecuted, given correction is explicitly a crime?
-
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
MEDIA RELEASE
1 June 2009
Cabinet Minister’s Smacking Law Comments Welcomed
Family First NZ is welcoming comments made by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett in a radio interview over the weekend.
When a caller to the programme on Newstalk ZB asked the Minister whether she thought a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence in NZ, the Minister responded ‘No I don’t, I believe that actually good parenting should be left to do that in their different ways in their different homes and I don’t have an interest in going into people’s homes and telling them how to parent’.
“This is a welcome change to the previous message that parents have received from politicians that ‘we know best how to raise your kids’,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Ms Bennett is also willing to acknowledge the difference between a smack as part of good parental correction, and child abuse. She went on to say ‘I’ve got the hat on of being hugely hugely concerned with serious abuse – now I think they’re very different things so do understand I’m not saying that section 59 was ever going to stop that…’. She also admitted that she would never have introduced an anti-smacking bill.”
Paula Bennett now joins Labour leader Phil Goff as having indicated that a smack as part of good parental correction should not be a crime in NZ, as the law currently stands. This is the question being asked in the upcoming Referendum on the anti-smacking law.
The Minister also acknowledged the level of daily concern from parents regarding the law and its impact on their parenting and the attitude of children.
“If the politicians believe that the law as it currently stands is wrong, they should save the country $10m on a Referendum and amend the law now,” says Mr McCoskrie. “They can simply adopt the private members bill put forward by ACT MP John Boscawen, and then heed the calls for a Royal Commission to target the real causes of child abuse.”
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director
Mob. 027 55 555 42
-
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ and the referendum – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59
A brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!
