Family Integrity

Tag: Section 59

  • Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2773068/Anti-smacking-side-concede-loss-likely

    Anti-smacking side concede loss likely

    By MICHAEL FOX – Stuff.co.nz

    Larry Baldock

    HOT ISSUE: Larry Baldock with boxes of petitions in 2008. The petition, circulated nationwide, led to the referendum.

    Campaigners on both sides of the smacking debate believe a referendum result due out tonight will be a victory for those who opposed a controversial 2007 law change.

    We will bring you results of the referendum as soon as they are available this evening.

    Preliminary results from the controversial $9 million citizens-initiated poll are due at 8.30pm this evening  although they are not binding, and the government has not signalled any intention to act on the result.

    Those behind the referendum, which asks: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” believe the majority of respondents will have voted no. As of last Friday, 1,330,900 votes had been cast.

    “I’ve been working on this for 32 months and to get the final result it will be great,” Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock, who initiated the referendum, said.

    “I think it will definitely be a majority no vote.”

    The referendum follows a controversial law change in 2007 led by Green Party MP Sue Bradford which repealed Section 59 in the Crimes Act, a clause which made it legal for parents to use reasonable force to discipline a child.

    The law change made it illegal for parents to use force against their children but affords police discretionary powers not to prosecute where the offence is considered inconsequential.

    Mr Baldock said the 2007 Act should be repealed, and is so confident the majority of Kiwis feels the same that he has already organised a party at an Auckland motel for supporters, where they will gather to await the result.

    Vote Yes spokeswoman and former NZ First MP Deborah Morris-Travers said the group that opposes smacking did not expect the vote to go their way.

    “We’ve always expected that the majority vote would be a No vote because, of course, thats how the question is put. It’s a loaded question.”

    However, she said the campaign had allowed them to (miss-educate)  educate people about the law and address (spread) some of the misinformation that surrounded it.

    She pointed to the latest police statistics which, she said, proved concerns in the community that large numbers of parents would be criminalised for smacking were unfounded.

    (No any good family that comes before the Police and CYFs is unnecessary and traumatic for the family)

    The figures from the latest six-month review showed police attended 279 child assault events in the six-month review period between last October and April.

    Of those events, 39 involved “minor acts of physical discipline”, with four resulting in prosecutions. Eight of those involved smacking.

    During the previous review period, police attended 258 child assault events of which 49 were “minor acts of physical discipline” and nine involved smacking.

    Police said there had been little impact on their workloads since the law was enacted.

    “It’s hardly thousands and thousands of parents are being criminalised because they are absolutely not,” Ms Morris-Travers said

    (One good family criminalised is too many – especially if it is your family)

    She said she had detected a sea change in people’s attitudes and New Zealanders needed to give the law a chance.

    “They can have confidence in [the law] and they can have confidence in the way the police are administering the law,” she said.

    The No campaigners would be making recommendations on how the law should be changed and hoped Prime Minister John Key would act quickly, Mr Baldock said.

    Mr Baldock said little had been gained from the legislation so far.

    “If you look at all the time and money and, you know, angst thats been expended on this for the past three or four years and for what gain?” he said.

    However, both Mr Key and opposition leader Phil Goff have said they are comfortable with the legislation as it stands and a No vote would not change that.

  • The smacking referendum – my summary

    As plenty of readers will already know, New Zealanders are currently taking part in a postal referendum on the issue of whether or not a parent smacking a child under any circumstances should be a crime. I have already voted no.

    In 2007 Sue Bradford of the Green Party was successful in having section 59 of the crimes act repealed and replaced with a new version. The former version provided exceptions to the law concerning assault, providing a defence. It permitted parents to use “reasonable force” in the process of correcting their children. This would include, putting a child in her room against her will, administering a smack, placing a child on the “naughty stool” when he didn’t want to go, and so on. These are all uses of force, and are acceptable provided they are done within reason (e.g. hurling a child into her room would not be allowed, and nor would punching a child’s lights out or shoving him into the stool).

    This defence was necessary because of the unique relationship that parents have with children. Obviously it would be illegal for me to select a random adult and force him into a bedroom and require him to stay there. That would be assault and unlawful detention, as would making him sit on a stool against his will, and smacking him would just be common assault. So there was a natural and obvious difference between the rights and protections given to another adult and those given to a child. This is reflected in other aspects of law too (e.g. children can’t buy alcohol, vote, consent to sex, get married, drive a car etc). Those who say, for example “if you can’t do it to an adult, why should you be allowed to do it to a child?” are just not thinking seriously about the issues at all.

    The new section 59 erases this defence completely. In its place here’s what it now says, as law professor Jim Evans pointed out:

    Subsection (1) of the new section 59 allows a parent (or person in the place of a parent) to use force that is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of (a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person, (b) preventing the child from engaging in a criminal offence, (c) preventing the child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour, or (d) performing the normal daily tasks incidental to good care and parenting.

    So far so good. “But wait a minute,” you might think. “part (d) would allow a smack, provided it was part of good parenting.” Up to this point, maybe, but then check subsection (2) of the new version. It reads: “Nothing in subsection (1) justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” Subsection (3) adds: “Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).”
    Subsection (2) is where the problem arises, and it is this section that now prompts people to call for a law change. So here is the issue: Force is allowed as part of “good care and parenting,” provided it’s not corrective. Now wait a minute, isn’t correction part of good care and parenting? Confused yet?

    In case it wasn’t unclear enough for parents already, subsection 4 makes it even worse, allowing police discretion when this crime of assault against children is committed, enabling them to decide for themselves which criminal acts to prosecute. So a law that is already now written in doublespeak then gives police sole discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute, in a case where the defence of reasonable force in correcting a child is no longer available.

    Because of the wording of subsection 1, which refers to “good care and parenting,” and because of the wording of subsection 2 (which for many, introduces confusion), referring to “correction” as though it was excluded from good care and parenting opponents of the law change had the referendum question worded as follows, following the lead of the legislation:

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

    The question was written precisely because of the terms used in the new law, asking new Zealanders, in effect, whether they agreed with the divide that the law proposed between “good care and parenting” in which reasonable force was allowed, and “correction” in which no force at all was allowed.

    I think that the facts as spelled out above are relatively simple and easy to ascertain. However, the supporters of Sue Bradford’s law change, as well as supporters of voting “Yes” in the referendum (the two groups partly overlap) have set out on a campaign of misinformation and deception, along with bungled and careless reading of the law.

    John Roughan is among the worst offenders. In reply to the claim that the law is unclear or possibly inconsistent, he writes that subsection (1) clearly allows smacking, so there’s no ban on smacking here at all! He further implies that anyone who is worried about subsection (2) is supporting the right to inflict “a cold-blooded assault” intended to leave a defenceless child  “in pain and fear.” He claims that there’s absolutely no tension in the law because it’s obvious that “correction” in subsection 2 refers to this type of assault, or to things like “ritual thrashings.”

    Fortunately, uncritical opponents of the referendum (like those who reproduced Roughan’s material online as gospel) weren’t the only ones reading. Roughan’s legally uninformed perspective was itself given a good thrashing in the same newspaper by Professor Emeritus of law at Auckland University, Dr Jim Evans (see here). He explains just how the new section 59 is in fact unclear and a poor piece of legislation.

    Others (e.g. the propaganda site “yesvote”) have claimed that the wording of the referendum question is loaded because it uses the word “good” and repetitive because it uses the word “correction.” This just represents a failure to understand the specific legal reasons why those terms were chosen. They were chosen because subsection (1) allows force as part of good parenting, and yet subsection (2) forbids force in cases of correction. The referendum question then asks parents if correction using force can indeed be part of good parenting. The only ones claiming that the question is loaded or unclear are those who are motivated to do so, namely those who themselves fully understand the question but who want people to vote “Yes.”

    There’s a good list of frequently asked questions over at http://voteno.org.nz/faq.htm

    But isn’t “Vote no” a propaganda group too? Sure, in the sense that they are trying to influence opinion. They do, however, draw on the legal facts of the matter, along with evidence that the new law is not making any positive difference in the abuse rates of children, and they also illustrate the negative impact of the law on good parents in New Zealand. If the facts are in poor taste, then that website’s up to no good!

    So for what it’s worth, if you haven’t voted yet, vote NO.

    To view the comments and to make a comment go to:

    http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/the-smacking-referendum-my-summary/

  • Smacking question is clear enough

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/70140/smacking-question-clear-enough?page=0%2C0

    Smacking question is clear enough

    Tue, 18 Aug 2009

    Rex Ahdar takes issue with the idea that the “smacking” referendum is ambiguous and confusing.

    Unless you have been living in the Fiordland bush for the last few years, or have just arrived from Latvia, you would readily understand the fateful sentence in its cultural context

    People should exercise their democratic rights and vote in the smacking referendum.

    I believe the objections to it are misplaced.

    Some cry, what about the expense? Could not the money have been spent on tackling child abuse? Yes, but the promoters of the referendum are not to blame.

    The government was asked to run the referendum in conjunction with the general election, but it said no.

    The referendum question might have proved an unpalatable, additional reason for voters not to give Labour and the Greens another term.

    It is thus disingenuous for the politicians to cry waste when they had a straightforward opportunity to avoid it.

    Besides, $9 million is not a huge amount when considering an important parental practice and, as the abolitionists of smacking remind us, the welfare of children.

    If we can spend $80 million per year on possum eradication, we can afford a fraction of this on such an important matter of family governance.

    Next, the wording is said to be ambiguous and confusing.

    Really? Read in isolation I suppose one could quibble with its meaning.

    But unless you have been living in the Fiordland bush for the last few years, or have just arrived from Latvia, you would readily understand the fateful sentence in its cultural context.

    The referendum wording is read against the background of the ongoing public controversy over the merits of a law to permit mild corporal punishment of children by their parents.

    The real gripe is not so much that the wording is ambiguous, but that it is slanted.

    Perhaps.

    To me, the offending phrase simply sets the context in which a smack occurs.

    On the other hand, critics contend that smacking and good parental correction are cunningly linked, implying that the two are part and parcel of the same thing.

    Critics refuse to see how a smack can ever be part of good parental correction.

    But again, the proponents of the referendum are not at fault.

    As the Californian experience of referendums shows, the promoters always try to word the thing in a way that favours their desired result.

    Having invested a huge amount of energy to secure the minimum 10% of voters necessary to trigger a referendum, who can blame them? But the real culprit, if any, is the Clerk of the House.

    The clerk is the independent statutory official responsible for vetting the wording and ensuring, in the words of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, the question put to voters conveys clearly the referendum’s purpose and is capable only of one of two answers.

    The so-called poor wording is the fault of former clerk David McGee QC.

    Next, is the current version of section 59 of the Crimes Act working satisfactorily? Have parents who engaged in a light, non-injurious corporal correction (a smack) been prosecuted? The answer, according to Family First’s investigations, is yes.

    And those who have not been prosecuted have still undergone the stress of a police investigation, and probably scrutiny by Child, Youth and Family personnel, too.

    Why the prime minister maintains the present law is working well (and thus no action is needed) is puzzling.

    Looking back, the whole rationale for the law change was suspect, if not illusory.

    Abolitionists, led by Sue Bradford MP, continually raised the spectre of the abuser who sheltered behind the section 59 defence and was thereby acquitted of blatant thuggery by a feeble jury.

    The celebrated and deliberately vague examples usually cite the father who beat his son with a hunk of wood and the mother who viciously used a horsewhip on her son.

    A closer inspection of the facts reveals another story.

    The Havelock North father hastily used a thin piece of kindling (a foot long and 2cm thick) on his 8-year-old son’s backside following an admitted incident of stealing by the boy.

    This is hardly the ominous piece of four-by-two that is typically asserted.

    The Timaru mother did use an 18-inch long and half-inch thick riding crop, but in urgent response to her 12-year-old son’s attempt to hit his stepfather on the head with a softball bat.

    On both occasions, the juries decided that the parents’ response was reasonable in all the circumstances.

    At best, this repetition of the-abuser-was-acquitted tales is sloppy.

    At worst, it is calculated and deliberate misrepresentation.

    The smacking defence-justified-abuse gambit is really just a specious ploy to undermine a law that was working satisfactorily.

    It is sleight of hand designed to divert attention away from the abolitionist’s real objection, which is philosophical from start to finish.

    The previous law did not permit physical abuse by parents to go unpunished.

    The social science evidence on the effects of smacking on children does not show that it is harmful.

    The Otago University Children’s Issues Centres 2004 report said: “While it is clear from the research that severe and harsh punishment [both physical or other] is potentially very risky for children’s development, occasional physical punishment occurs in many families and may not have long-term negative effects as long as it is used in a climate of warmth and love, where the predominant mode of relating to children is positive.

    “To say that smacking is associated with children’s aggression, under-achievement, depression is mischievous.

    “The observation that two things are associated [or correlated] does not mean there is a causal connection between them.”

    Faced with these inconvenient facts, opponents of smacking are relegated to asserting their personal convictions.

    I have no doubt that abolitionists sincerely believe that corporal punishment of children is morally wrong.

    They are entitled to their view.

    If their liberal sensibilities are offended, let them exercise their own parental prerogatives by adopting other modes of discipline on their children.

    I will let them grapple with the question of whether time out (false imprisonment, if an adult was the one being confined), removal of pocket money (deprivation of property) and so on raise no ethical concerns.

    Let me, along with the other 83% of New Zealanders who do not share their moral sentiments, choose the form of discipline that we consider is sound. – Rex Ahdar

  • Distinguishing between correction and violence

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/69422/distinguishing-between-correction-and-violence

    Distinguishing between correction and violence

    Thu, 13 Aug 2009Sue Bradford

    Sue Bradford

    Most parents do not seek to harm their children but want the best for them, writes Michael Reid.

    What does that imply with respect to the “smacking” referendum?

    “When war comes, the first casualty is truth.”

    In the debate over smacking and the associated referendum, the definition of violence is the casualty.

    Advocates of the “yes” vote get away with using the word “violence” all the time.

    They don’t distinguish between responsible parents who use a light smack from those using implements to inflict severe pain.

    Emotive words like “belting”, “beating” and “whacking” all blur the distinction.

    But the difference between parental correction and violence is critical.

    The occasional smack is not the same as abuse with jug cords, belts and sticks.

    The latter is totally unacceptable and most parents know the difference – they always have.

    This debate is not about legal rights but the lived experience of family life.

    Despite hysteria to the contrary, those opposing Sue Bradford’s law are not condoning smacking, but they know that responsible parenting requires a range of skills and techniques to do the job.

    Many voting “no” are upset with the state limiting their options and making them criminals if they dare to smack.

    The caveat that investigating police exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis prior to charges being laid doesn’t allay parental fears nor promote consistency in enforcement, which is the basis of good law.

    Ms Bradford herself is confused: she doesn’t want light smacking criminalised, but then claims she wants children to be “free from violence”.

    Good law, though, has to be enforceable and this equivocation only muddies the waters of what is meant by violence.

    The former s.59 of the Crimes Act assumed responsible parenting and respected parental freedom up to a point.

    Where real abuse occurred, the police were right to prosecute.

    Ms Bradford’s amendment did not come about by the wholesale failure of s.59 but by the sustained activism of certain groups bent on popularising particular understandings of children’s rights.

    Children are not marching in the streets demanding reform; they want loving, committed parents, not more legal rights.

    As one writer has put it, a child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected.

    Supporters claim to be protecting children by extending to them the same rights as others to be free from violence.

    This sounds plausible, but is it? The parent-child relationship is a blood-tie, intergenerational bond that is different in essence to two adults on the street where one decides to hit the other.

    Parenting involves a responsibility to nurture and provide for the child from infancy to independence around 18 years of age.

    Most parents do not seek to harm their children but want the best for them and often harbour a desire they will do better in life than they have.

    In this sense, the “best interests of the child” (that hackneyed notion enshrined in the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) is fleshed out every day in families when parents love, nurture, discipline and sacrifice for their children.

    Moreover, the parent-child relationship has never been equal in terms of political power.

    Conflict always involves the will of the adult against that of the child.

    “Stop hitting your brother”; “go to your room”; “pick up your clothes” involve parents asserting their will.

    Only in recent times and as a result of the waffle offered by discourse analysis have theorists conceptualised normal tensions as a power issue in any political sense.

    This has created an artificial atmosphere of competing rights between parents and children.

    When rights clash, whose rights are most right?This is the where the yes supporters depart from the no voters in the referendum.

    The former see the world in terms of child’s legal rights but the latter just want to get on with parenting without running foul of the law for using the odd smack.

    Finally, the parent-child bond is unique among human relationships. It endures.

    No friendship or marriage lasts quite as long.

    For the child, the dynamic shifts from infant dependence through to independence as an adult.

    For parents, it moves from independence and active parenting through to (in many cases) a reliance on children in old age.

    That limited period in early childhood when smacking as one of a range of parenting techniques should be tolerated has to be seen in this long-term context of reciprocal responsibilities.

    Some parents, sadly, rely too heavily on smacking while others go well beyond it and abuse children. They are violent.

    The rate of child abuse in New Zealand is horrific.

    But let’s target the real causes rather than create a hypersensitive rights culture where responsible parents are treated as criminals for using the occasional smack.

    Let’s also distinguish between parental correction and violence.

    The Bradford law fails to do so and is confusing, presumptive and placing undue pressure on police resources.

    What an irony that we have rampant youth crime and unprecedented violence in our streets – yes, violence – yet we seem absorbed with this issue.

    And by the way, all this bunkum about a confusing referendum question: if you like the Bradford law, vote yes; if you don’t, vote no. Simple.

    • Dr Michael Reid is a parent, teacher, and author of the 2006 book From Innocents to Agents: children and children’s rights in New Zealand.

  • 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

  • Family Integrity #464 — McCoskrie Meeting invitation

    Family Integrity #464 — McCoskrie Meeting invitation

    See below.

    Craig & Barbara Smith

    https://mail.google.com/a/hef.org.nz/?ui=2&ik=ab0eb6de71&view=att&th=1228704fdcc4a095&attid=0.1&disp=inline&zw

  • Proposal to withdraw the referendum

    From: Larry Baldock
    Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 2:23 pm
    To: Hon. John Key (MIN)
    Cc: Hon. Bill English (MIN); Wayne Eagleson (MIN)
    Subject: Proposal to withdraw the referendum.

    The Prime Minister,
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington
    June 16, 2009.

    Dear Prime Minister,
    In the interests of saving our country most of the estimated $9 million to complete the referendum, Sheryl Savill, the petition proposer, and myself would withdraw the referendum, (as per Sec 22A (1) of the CIR Act 1993) in return for an agreement by yourself to amend the current sec 59 of the crimes Act in the following way.

    Delete the following sub clauses from the amended Sec 59,
    (2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
    (3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1),

    In this way, the criminalisation of parents who use some reasonable force to correct and train their children would be removed, whilst the other clarifications in Subsection (1) of the permissible use of reasonable force would remain.
    Your amendment emphasising the need for the police to use discretion could also remain.

    I would be happy to discuss these proposals with your officials and act promptly to call off the referendum and save the hard-earned money of the taxpayers of New Zealand.

    Yours sincerely,
    Larry Baldock.

    On 18/06/09 11:45 AM, “Wayne Eagleson (MIN)” <Wayne.Eagleson@parliament.govt.nz> wrote:

    Dear Larry,

    The Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf to your email regarding the s59 referendum.

    As the Prime Minister has indicated publicly on a number of occasions, the government is of the view that the current law is working. On that basis, the Prime Minister does not support your proposed changes to the law.

    With respect to the issue of the cost of the referendum, the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that while he was concerned at having to spend $9 million, with a legal process having triggered the referendum it would be followed through on.

    Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister on this issue.

    Yours sincerely,
    Wayne Eagleson
    Chief of Staff
    Office of the Prime Minister
    Ph: 64 4 817-9365 or 64 21 709 067
    Parliament Buildings
    Wellington

  • Read real-life stories of how the Anti-smacking law has hurt Kiwi families…

    Click on the writing below: