Family Integrity

Tag: Referendum

  • Children’s rights in the society

    Ruby Harrold-Claesson sent us this translated article:

    http://www.nkmr.org/english/childrens_rights_in_the_society.htm

    Children’s rights in the

    society

    By Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    This year, marks the thirtieth year since Sweden became the first in the world to prohibit child-smacking. The law has attracted much attention internationally and Sweden is considered in large parts of the world as a pioneer country in terms of children’s rights. Bris (Children’s Rights in the Society) notes the anniversary with a campaign where they ask the question “What has actually happened?” It is a sensible question, because now is the time to look back on these thirty years and see what has been achieved. How much is there behind all Sweden’s fine words about the rights of the children?

    Five years before the anti-smacking law was passed the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament) passed another controversial law: that of free abortion. Since 1974, this decision led to over 1 million children being killed in our country. The consequences of the two laws in combination are absurd. In Sweden, a parent is prosecuted and tried in court for a slap in the face. The same parents can be – completely within boundaries of the law – to poison, maim and kill their children if they are younger than 18 weeks old. Smacking a child can lead to police action, whereas that same child could have had its head crushed by an adult at an earlier stage of its development – quite legally. The situation is bizarre and profoundly tragic. Save the Children, Bris and other organizations that claim to protect children’s rights – as far as I know – do not lift a finger to save the unborn children.

    Where is the logic? I who am approximately contemporary with these laws, I am experiencing great pain over the disaster that contempt for the smallest children’s rights has meant for Sweden. The Sweden that we from the late seventies have grown up in has been deprived of one million citizens. People who would have lived among us as our family members, neighbours, schoolmates, colleagues, friends and spouses. People who would have helped to build this country and take care of the older generation. People who are irreplaceable and unique.

    Can all you experts, ideologues and opinion leaders – especially those from the forties – who contributed to the passing of these two laws give me an explanation?

    What were you really thinking?

    Annette Westöö, born 1977, is a MA in Religious Knowledge and she is a teacher for seven years. She is the vice president of the pro-life organisation “Human Rights for the Unborn” and she is an active member of the Swedish Church. Annette Westöö has for many years been an active protector of children’s and their families’ rights. During the past years she has written several debate articles and opinion pieces about the rights of the unborn child.

    The Swedish version of this article has been sent to several Swedish newspapers, but so far its fate is unknown. It is published here with the kind consent of the author.

    Destroying the Family: Swedish style

    A family flees from the Welfare State

    Back to Articles

    Back to Main

    Original Article:

    Barnens rätt i samhället

    Annette Westöö, Göteborg

    I år är det trettio år sedan Sverige blev först ut i världen med att förbjuda barnaga. Lagen har väckt stor uppmärksamhet internationellt och Sverige betraktas i stora delar av världen som ett föregångsland när det gäller barns rättigheter. Bris uppmärksammar jubileet i en kampanj där man ställer frågan ”Vad har egentligen hänt?”. Det är en klok fråga, för nu är det tid att blicka bakåt på dessa trettio år och se vad som åstadkommits. Hur mycket ligger det egentligen bakom Sveriges alla vackra ord om barnens rätt?

    Fem år före anti-agalagens tillkomst stiftade Sveriges riksdag en annan kontroversiell lag: den om fri abort. Sedan 1974 har detta beslut lett till över en miljon barns död i vårt land. Följderna av de båda lagarna i kombination är absurda. I Sverige kan en förälder åtalas och dömas i domstol för en örfil. Samma förälder kan – helt inom lagens råmärken – låta förgifta, lemlästa och döda sitt barn om det är yngre än 18 veckor. En dask riktad mot ett barn kan leda till polisingripanden, medan detta barn kunde ha fått sitt huvud krossat av en vuxen i ett tidigare stadium av sin utveckling –  helt lagligt. Situationen är bisarr och bottenlöst tragisk. Rädda barnen, Bris och andra organisationer som säger sig värna om barns rättigheter har vad jag vet inte lyft ett finger för att rädda de ofödda barnen. Var finns logiken?

    Jag, som är ungefär jämnårig med dessa lagar, upplever stor smärta över den katastrof som föraktet för de minsta barnens rättigheter har inneburit för Sverige. Det Sverige som vi sena sjuttiotalister har vuxit upp i saknar en miljon medborgare. Människor som skulle ha levt ibland oss som våra familjemedlemmar, grannar, skolkamrater, kollegor, vänner och makar. Människor som skulle ha hjälpt till att bygga det här landet och ta hand om den äldre generationen. Människor som är oersättliga och unika.

    Kan alla ni experter, ideologer och opinionsbildare – förmodligen främst fyrtiotalister – som var med och drev fram dessa båda lagar ge mig en förklaring?

    Hur tänkte ni, egentligen?

  • Referendum Voting Papers

    If you…

    didn’t receive your voting papers
    have lost your voting papers
    Voted yes when you meant to vote NO

    then go here:

    http://www.elections.org.nz/app/cir-reissue/

    or ring 0800 36 76 56

  • REFERENDUM COUNTDOWN!

    17 Aug 2009

    REFERENDUM COUNTDOWN!

    Just 4 days to go!

    This is our final ad in today’s NZ Herald . Please be sure to send your voting forms back, and encourage friends, family and work colleagues to do likewise. We’ll let you know the final result as soon as we hear late Friday night.

    MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!

    www.familyfirst.org.nz

  • Referendum 44% return so far – one week to go

    Two press releases:

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    The people are speaking!!

    Kiwi Party Leader and Referendum Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he was thrilled with the number of Kiwis making their voice heard in the referendum.


    The latest update from the Chief Electoral Office confirms that as at 5.00pm Thursday 13 August 1,330,900 votes had been received by the Chief Electoral Office vote-processing centre for the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”.

    “This is approx 44% of those registered, a significant increase over the first week and many more than normally received after two weeks of the Local Government postal elections. It definitely puts the referendum on track to be a better turnout than Local Body elections with a result that cannot be discredited,” said Mr Baldock.

    ends

    Larry Baldock
    021864833

    and

    MEDIA RELEASE
    14 August 2009
    Voters Loud and Clear on Referendum
    Family First NZ is welcoming news that 44% of voters have now returned their ballot papers for the anti-smacking referendum.
    “It is quite evident that NZ’ers understand the question, want their say on the issue, and expect the politicians to listen,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
    “44% of registered voters is only just short of the turnout for the recent Mt Albert by-election (47%) and most City Councils, Mayors and Community Boards have been elected by less than 44% in the last 2 local body elections. It is quite evident that NZ’ers feel strongly on this issue and still have another full week 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,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    ENDS
    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Mob. 027 55 555 42


  • The Debate; Bradford vs Baldock 13 August 9-10pm

    The Debate; Bradford vs Baldock
    Thanks to everyone who sent an encouraging note re the ‘Open Letter to Sue’. That feedback was really appreciated. My apologies for any delay in getting replies out so far.

    Just a quick update on developments on the debate so far.

    Radio Waatea have organised a debate tonight (Thursday 13 August) with Sue Bradford and I for one hour from 9pm. You can check out the frequency or how to listen on line if you are outside their broadcast area by going to their website,  http://www.waatea603am.co.nz/

    The plan is to also take questions from listeners after the debate and their free calling number is 0800 4 603 603 for those who live out of Auckland, and 257 0603 for those living in Auckland.

    I have also been contacted by CTV in Christchurch who are keen to host a televised debate for one hour. At the moment they are making contact with Sue. If it goes ahead it will be able to be broadcast also on Sky channels and YouTube.

    More information on Friday after we hear the latest update on the numbers from the Electoral Commission.

    Till then,

    Larry Baldock

  • Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE
    12 August 2009
    Call for Urgent Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse
    Family First NZ is repeating its call for an official inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse in NZ. The call comes after the death of a 2-year old child in Kaitaia, the investigation into the critical injuries suffered by a Whangarei toddler, and an admission by police of “unacceptable” delays and insufficient investigation into child abuse cases – especially in the Wairarapa.
    “The 80% plus of NZ’ers who oppose the anti-smacking law are not people who are demanding the right to ‘assault’ and ‘beat’ children,” says Bob McCoskrie of Family First. “They are simply kiwis who are exasperated with the fact that politicians and supposed family welfare groups are more interested in targeting good parents than tackling the tougher issues of family breakdown, drug and alcohol abuse, violence in our media, poverty and stress, and weak family ties.”
    “The anti-smacking bill has been a spectacular failure because it has failed to identify and target the real issues.
    It was simply about a political agenda rather than practical solutions.”
    “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 14 deaths since the law was passed,” says Mr McCoskrie.
    “These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that 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,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    HALL OF SHAME
    Since Anti-smacking law was passed

    1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
    2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007
    3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
    4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
    5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa
    6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu
    7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury
    8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008
    9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008
    10. 16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008
    11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009
    12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009
    13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009
    14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09
    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie JP – NATIONAL DIRECTOR
    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588462&pnum=0

    Phil Jackson: Parents, not governments, are responsible for children

    4:00AM Tuesday Aug 04, 2009

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

    It is an extreme rarity for a Politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case. Photo / Hawke’s Bay Today

    Your Views Have you changed your habits since the smacking law? Tell us your stories

    Parliament tends to attract those that are unable to ferret out the principles of important issues. The Electoral Finance Bill and the Microchipping Bill are two good examples of bits of subjective legislation that should have stayed submerged.

    Members of Parliament know that they can get away with many things because they have denied the public the means to direct them on issues important to them. The Privy Council as the last means of appeal was abolished by a government that wanted its legislation to be interpreted in a particular way and despite the overwhelming number of submissions against this, decided that is what it wanted anyway.

    The referendum on smacking has come about because ordinary New Zealanders and many decent mums and dads have felt that the law change was wrong. Support for the original law has hovered around 80 per cent and it comes as no surprise to the cynical amongst us that Prime Minister John Key is not interested in changing the new law.

    A disrespect for democracy is a hallmark of many politicians. Although they depend on it to get power, once it has been gained they flaunt it with impunity.

    It is an extreme rarity for a politician to articulate a deep understanding of any issue and this debate shows that this is still the case.

    This law change was sold on the pretext that it would stop the senseless murder and physical abuse of infants. Only a fool would expect a law to be able to stop everyone committing such acts.

    Sentences of prison do not stop murders nor will they, nor have they stopped the young and helpless dying from the acts of others.

    The law now states that parents cannot use physical discipline for correction. If this is a good principle, then it should also apply to adults and that time out should also not be used for correction for children.

    The penalty for a breach of this law is intended to correct the attitude. It is not a good principle but a bad ideal.

    My two boys can be quite hard to manage sometimes and the rare times I’ve had to administer some physical correction, I have seen them want to become closer to me after their boundaries had become re-established.

    Those that argue that smacking is violence show a simplistic grasp of the subject. Society has rules that apply to different contexts that permit “violence”. For example martial arts, contact sports and self-defence.

    It has long been accepted that parents have responsibility for their own children and the law change has now taken away some of that responsibility.

    When John Key says the legislation is working – I worry. If I were to say my car is working when someone expresses an interest in buying it, no one would for a second think that I meant “working well”.

    Is it working because ordinary parents are now criminals? Is it working to prevent children being shaken and murdered by step-parents? Is a smack abuse?

    These are important questions and left to politicians, they would remain unanswered.

    The test for the police of “in the public’s best interests” is a subjective nightmare of inconsistency.

    The New Zealand police have lost the respect of many people including myself due to preferential treatment for Helen Clark’s misdemeanours, pursuing cases where the evidence was shaky and wasting resources prosecuting shopkeepers who tried to defend themselves. If we can’t trust the police and we certainly cannot trust politicians then what authority can we trust?

    A woman I know spent nine months carrying her baby, with morning sickness in the first trimester, and toxaemia in the final few weeks. The baby’s head was too big for her birth canal and a caesarean with epidural was needed.

    That baby woke three or four times nightly for over six months causing countless lost hours of sleep. When that baby grew into a 10-year-old and one day went too far, with the woman already stressed out, she slapped her child on the face. Under this legislation, she could have become a criminal.

    In summary, the new law prevents smacks for correction without any basis, has a test that could never be absolute and objective, and was meant to stop deaths. In reality the architects of this law were uncomfortable with parents giving their children physical discipline and wanted to impose their ideals on others.

    Excessive cases of discipline were prosecuted before the law change and will continue to be under any law change.

    This referendum provides a limited opportunity for the public to voice their concern and if enough people support a law change then only the most resistant politicians will ignore their voice.

    * Phil Jackson lives in Auckland.

  • EDITORIAL: Smacking law misses real target

    GARTH McVICAR – Sensible Sentencing Trust | 4th August 2009

    Child abuse is the scourge of New Zealand; it is like a plague on the horizon, hanging over us like a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode.

    When will the next case occur and how horrific will the child’s injuries be?

    Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    That is the question Hawke’s Bay people are being asked in the referendum.

    Hitting a child with a pipe or a piece of 4×2 was never allowed and the perpetrators should always feel the full force of the law _ but banning smacking hasn’t and will never stop the person who would commit such an act.

    Let’s face it; the calibre of person who would do such a thing probably can’t read the law, anyway. And if they could they wouldn’t give a toss! Most of them only get a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket, anyway. I want child abuse stopped.

    But Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law has not done that, in fact child abuse is as rampant today as it was before the legislation changed.

    We should be encouraging good parents, but because a parent uses a smack to enforce a request or directive does that mean they are a bad parent? New Zealand has deteriorated from being THE safest country in the western world to now having a totally unacceptable -and escalating _ level of violent crime.

    In my opinion two things have been responsible for that:

    1) The politically correct nonsense that has destroyed the morals and values that made New Zealand great _ and safe.

    2) Weak-kneed politicians and lawmakers who have sanctioned this disastrous politically correct experiment.

    Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law is just another nail in the coffin of good commonsense parenting.

    Children who misbehave should be disciplined and taught boundaries; it should be up to that parent how they administer that discipline.

    Accountability, responsibility, respect and discipline may be considered old-fashioned but countries that are returning to traditional “old-school” morals and values are the countries that are now experiencing massive reductions in violent crime.

    Violent crime in New Zealand is still escalating alarmingly and banning smacking will be like all the other politically correct nonsense that has been forced upon us.

    It will have the opposite effect of what the well-meaning but seriously misguided instigators expected.

    The ban on smacking will ultimately lead to the building of more prisons as the impact of a totally undisciplined generation comes back to haunt us.

  • PM warned over smacking referendum

    PM warned over smacking referendum

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/2733370/Hide-warns-of-public-backlash-on-smacking

    By GRAHAME ARMSTRONG – Sunday Star Times

    Last updated 05:00 09/08/2009

    ROB KITCHIN/Dominion Post
    HITTING KIDS: John Key has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

    ACT Party leader Rodney Hide has warned Prime Minister John Key of a public backlash if the government ignores the result of the controversial smacking referendum.

    Snubbing the referendum result sends a message that politicians know what’s best for the people and that the government is running a “nanny state”, Hide wrote in a letter delivered to Key’s office on Friday.

    The referendum question asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand.” The postal ballot, which is voluntary, opened on July 31 and closes on August 21. As of Thursday, chief electoral officer Robert Penden said 570,300 people had voted.

    Those who believe parents should be allowed to smack their children have campaigned strongly for a “no” vote. They want to repeal the 2007 law that removed the defence of reasonable force in child-assault cases.

    Key, however, has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

    He described the referendum question as “pretty weird” and a case of “yes means no and no means yes”.

    “It could have been written by Dr Seuss,” Key said.

    The referendum has also been controversial for its $9 million cost.

    In the letter to Key, Hide, who said he had been shocked by the number of parents who had been unfairly treated under the new law, urged the prime minister to act on the result of the referendum, a sign that the “no” campaign believe they will score a decisive victory.

    Hide told Key the law change two years ago had driven a wedge between parent and child and although some people might disapprove of the way others behaved, it did not give them the right to make the others criminals, “unless their behaviour is demonstrably causing harm”.

    Hide said one of the reasons Labour lost the last election was because people were sick of being told how to live their lives by politicians and “it would be a tragedy if, six months into your government, a nanny state tendency emerged once again in ignoring the clear wish of the people… ”

    “The referendum gives an opportunity for the public to speak. Their views must be respected.”

    But the “yes” campaign says the government and parliament should wait for a review of the new law, due to be completed this year, before it responds to the referendum.

  • Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser

    Open letter to Sue Bradford from Larry Baldock Referendum Petition Organiser
    9 August, 2009

    Sue, I watched the forum on Maori Television Friday night with you, Dr Hone Kaa and Bob McCoskrie.  How I wished I was there to respond to the drivel you continue to repeat in defence of your anti-smacking law.  “Adults can’t hit each other so adults shouldn’t be able to hit children,” is probably the main argument you and your supporters use to justify your law that is now criminalising good parents all over this country.

    Let me tell you why you are wrong and why your argument is flawed from the very beginning.

    Firstly, some adults can hit others without breaking the law. They are called police and we give them this authority because we know that in some circumstances someone must use reasonable force to correct the unacceptable behaviour of some adults in our society. If I were to throw a wobbly and begin to refuse to submit to the laws of this country, and act in a threatening manner to persons or property, the police could hit me with a baton, taser me with 50,000 volts of electricity, handcuff me, and backed by the justice system, even enforce my timeout in a correctional institution if necessary for a number of years.

    It is probably widely known in NZ that you have disliked this authority that is entrusted to our police ever since your early protesting days when you sought to assault some of our good men in uniform. Truth be known you probably would like this authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction to be taken away from the police as well as from parents, but most of us in this country are comfortable leaving such power in their hands.

    So let me say it again, it is not true that it is always against the law for an adult to use force against another adult if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Sounds very much like the old sec 59 doesn’t it!

    Your second error is made when you constantly bleat on about how children should be treated the same as adults in law because this neglects that fact that sec 21 & 22 of the crimes Act has always treated children differently by giving them specific exemptions from prosecution for any criminal activity they may commit.

    We do this for two reasons. Firstly, because they are not mature enough mentally and emotionally to be held accountable to adult laws. Your line of argument for equality would demand that when a two year old at Preschool lashes out and hits another two year old the police should be called to arrest them for assault, then prosecute and jail them like adults. That of course would be ridiculous.

    And secondly this exemption was given for children because it was widely accepted by society that they should not have their behaviour corrected by the police, but rather by their parents who would be in a much better position to do so.

    Now, as a consequence of your ill-considered law that has removed any legal authority for parents to ‘use force for the purpose of correction,’ we have empowered children and disempowered the parents that society reasonably expects to be responsible for their children’s correction and training for adulthood.

    Thirdly, this argument of yours is stupid because it does not recognise the difference in relationship between a husband and wife as two mature adults, and the relationship between adult parents and their children. This constant referral to an old law that permitted a husband to correct his wife adds nothing to the real debate about parental correction. Of course these laws of inequality between men and women should have been changed and it is a shame it took so long.
    Women’s suffrage was also slow in coming and the recognition of the equal right of women to vote was an important victory.  Your argument for equality between adults and children though, could lead to a suspicion that you might think that 3 and 4 year old children should vote as well. Perhaps this is a little close to the truth as I have read how the ‘yes vote’ campaigners have been calling for the opinions of children to be heard in the anti-smacking debate already.

    A husband is not responsible to make his wife go to school, a wife is not responsible to make her husband eat healthy vegetables, take a bath, etc (though some may argue they have to anyway) therefore the pleas you make for equal rights cannot be logically argued.
    Actually as most of us parents know, children have far more rights than we do because they get food, clothing and shelter all free of charge without having to lift a finger to work for it or pay for it.  And as parents we would say this is right and good, as we willingly become their slaves 24/7, because they are the most precious gifts we are ever entrusted with.
    Their value and worth are priceless. But with the awesome responsibility parents carry for the welfare of their children, they should be trusted in the same way as our police are entrusted with the authority to use reasonable force for the purpose of correction when needed, without the interference of the state.

    Sue, when my wife and I were traversing the country collecting signatures from thousands of good Kiwis from all walks of life, do you know what they were most upset about?

    They wanted to know when it was that you earned the right to become the ‘mother of the nation.’ What possesses you to think that you know more about raising children than the hundreds of thousands who have raised healthy, well adjusted, law abiding citizens in this country. Though they have been smacked and corrected they have not grown up violent and disrespectful, and this argument you make about smacking creating violent adults is not supported by any sensible research that distinguishes between reasonable force and a beating and abuse.

    In this wonderful free country of ours you are of course entitled to your views, and you can parent your kids and give advice to them on how they raise your grandchildren as much as you like, but don’t try and tell me my mother was a child abuser when she corrected me as a child.

    You know Sue, we have clashed a few times in debates on different topics over the past few years. I have never yet heard a proposition from you that really stood the test of common sense and proper scrutiny. How I would love to debate the anti-smacking issue with you again before all the votes are cast. Perhaps there may be some media organisation that could serve the public of NZ by setting up such a contest.

    A contest between just you and me. You, as the author of the anti-smacking law and dedicated supporter, and me, the organiser of the referendum petition and dedicated opponent.

    You said you would be willing to meet for a debate with me anywhere anytime. Let’s do it. The taxpayer will cover your travel; I’ll take care of my own.

    Regards,

    Larry Baldock
    Kiwi Party Leader

    021864833