Tag: smacking/spanking

  • MPs demand free vote on child smacking ban

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-free-vote-on-child-smacking-ban-953501.html

    MPs demand free vote on child smacking ban

    By Ben Russell, home affairs correspondent
    Tuesday, 7 October 2008

    A new attempt to ban smacking will be launched tomorrow by a cross-party group of MPs, as more than 100 Labour backbenchers demand a free vote on the issue.

    MPs, led by Kevin Barron, the Labour chairman of the all-party Commons Health Committee, are attempting to stop parents from smacking their children as a “reasonable punishment”. They will table amendments to the Children and Young Persons Bill, due to be debated by the Commons tomorrow, to give children the same protection against assault as adults.

    Campaigners said that 111 Labour MPs had signed a private letter demanding a free vote on smacking, with some backbenchers warning they are prepared to defy Government whips if ministers do not back down.

    The last attempt to impose a full ban on smacking was defeated in 2004 when a compromise was agreed, tightening the law by outlawing punishment which left physical marks or caused mental harm. But campaigners say they want action to give children protection against all physical punishment.

  • Family First – Poll reveals backlash over smacking law

    From Family First e-newsletter. To subscribe to this newsletter send an email to: admin@familyfirst.org.nz

    1. Poll reveals backlash

    over smacking law
    The anti-smacking law is still enormously unpopular,

    a Herald election survey has found

    LISTEN Bob McCoskrie on National Radio The Panel discussing

    the latest poll results and the continued opposition to the law(starts at 16’52”)

    Family First Media Release Another Smacking Poll – Same Response

    Family First NZ says that the NZ Herald poll showing 86% opposition to the

    anti-smacking law is further proof that the law is fundamentally wrong and

    should be changed.


    Family First Media Release Bradford Encourages Parents to

    Carry On Smacking

    In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that

    smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos,

    Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of

    the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are

    misleading the public.


    Green Party Response Family First shows legal ignorance
    Green Party MP Sue Bradford has responded strongly to a statement

    by pro-violence (!!) lobby Family First saying Bob McCoskrie appears

    confused about what the amendment of Section 59 is actually about.

    There is no specific law relating to smacking on New Zealand’s statute

    books. People like Mr McCoskrie have fostered a myth that what has

    happened is that a new law has been created that specifically outlaws

    smacking. This is simply not true.


    Family First Comment : Dear Sue, if the law wasn’t about smacking

    and doesn’t outlaw smacking, why did you call it the ‘anti-smacking

    law’ when you introduced it? (original media release from 2003 below


  • Bradford Encourages Parents to Carry On Smacking

    In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.

    In a media release from the Green party today, Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’

    Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’

    And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844

    “Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”

    “Otherwise, we can only conclude that she is telling parents to carry on smacking and if investigated by police or CYF, parents should tell them that they don’t understand the law and to get lost. Yet parents are getting referred to CYF and the police by schools, neighbours, social workers, even their own kids, for light smacking.”

    “If the politicians who designed the law are confused, where does that put parents who are simply trying to raise good kids without breaking the law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that it clearly states that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 86% of NZ’ers according to today’s NZ Herald poll), and to then tackle the real causes of child abuse.

    To comment go to: http://christiannews.co.nz/2008/bradford-encourages-parents-to-carry-on-smacking/

  • Critique of the so-called ‘anti-smacking law’

    Critique of the so-called

    ‘anti-smacking law’.

    Old Section 59:

    Every parent of a child and…every

    person in the place of the parent

    of a child is justified in using

    force by way of correction

    towards the child, if the force

    used is reasonable in the

    circumstances.

    New Section 59:

    Parental Control

    (1) Every parent of a child

    and every person in the

    place of a parent of  the

    child is justified in using force

    if the force used is reasonable

    in the circumstances and is for

    the purpose of —

    (a) preventing or minimising

    harm to the child or another

    person; or

    (b) preventing the child from

    engaging or continuing to

    engage in conduct that amounts

    to a criminal offence; or

    (c) preventing the child from

    engaging or continuing to engage

    in offensive or disuptive

    behaviour; or

    (d) performing the normal daily

    tasks that are incidental to good

    care and parenting.

    (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).

    (4) To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

    Analysis:

    Subsection 4 is what is known as the ‘Key’ amendment because John Key proposed this amendment as a way, it is claimed, to make the law more acceptable to people and, it is said, to give police discretion in regards to whether they laid a charge or not. Three things regarding this amendment:

    1. The use of force to correct a child is said to be an ‘offence’. This term is used twice in the amendment. If one commits an offence which is a criminal offence – which the use of force against a child for the purpose of correction is according to this law – then the person who commits the offence is a criminal. The offence is an offence whether or not anyone knows about it, and regardless of whether or not a charge is made against the offending person for it. (A thief is a thief whether they’re caught and charged or not!)
    Consequently, the use of force for the purpose of correction under this law is by definition a criminal offence, and thus anybody who uses any force to correct a child is by definition a criminal. John Key/National acknowledge this in the amendment by the use of the word ‘offence’, and so did not moderate Bradford’s bill in the slightest with the amendment as they claim. Parents are still criminals if they use any force whatsoever for correction of their children, which is precisely what Bradford’s bill did all along without the ammendment.

    2. What this amendment did do was to add stupidity to perversity, in that right in the law itself, it was said that under some circumstances the law did not need to be enforced. Whoever heard of making a law which is not meant to be enforced? This is stupid. Why make the law? Laws are meant to be enforced!

    3. The amendment says that no prosecution by the police needs to proceed if ‘the offence’ – that is, the use of force for the correction of children – is inconsequential. With all due respect, this also is nonsense. The correction of children is meant to be consequential! It is meant to produce a consequence, a change of behavior. So what this is saying is that if the correction doesn’t correct the child and doesn’t change their behaviour, then you won’t be prosecuted, but if the correction does correct the child and does change their behaviour, as is intended by the correction, you will be prosecuted!

    So Nationals claim, as was said to me by a National MP, that the amendment vastly improved the bill, is nonsense.

    One of the things that were said ad nauseam by Bradford and supporters up until the passing of the bill, was that ‘reasonable force’ was used as a cover for abuse, a legal means which was used by child abusers who were brought to court, to evade conviction. Over a period of 10 years, 15 or so cases of appeal to Section 59 as a defense were made, and in half of the cases, those charged were found guilty, so the claim by Bradford etc hardly holds. When the old S59 was used in a spurious way in a case – as Bradford and Co falsely implied happened a lot, the court understood this and prosecuted if necessary.

    Now regarding ‘reasonable force’:
    Force is not defined in this law. Nor is the word ‘physical’ used as descriptive or defining of the force. Nor is the force said to be smacking. The word smacking is not anywhere in the bill.

    Force however is defined in the Crimes Act in one place, as found below. This definition was the definition that always defined the ‘force’ in S59 of the Crimes Act. S59 was in the Crimes Act so as to provide parents with exemption from precisely this very definition being applied to them. This exemption was there because the correction of children was understood to be a necessary and indeed a primary role of parenting. With the new S59 having removed the protection parents had from using force for the purpose of correction, this definition below is what now applies to them – without any sort of mitigation – in all those situations where parents apply any force for the purpose of correction.

    Crimes Act, Section 2, defines assault thus:

    2. Interpretation –

    “Assault” means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.

    As can be seen in highlighted sections of the two versions of Section 59 at the top – the old and new, virtually all of the original S59 was included in the new S59. Critically, all the parts of the old S59 that were criticised by Bradford and co as providing the legal grounds for parents to abuse their children, are retained in the new S59! However, in the old S59 there was only one ground allowed for the use of reasonable force – the force was to be for correction, whereas in the new S59 there are four grounds where reasonable force – exactly the same term – is allowed.
    And not only were the allowable grounds expanded from one to four, within each of those four there are a myriad of possibilities available for parents to ‘abuse’ their children.
    So, if ‘reasonable force’ under the old law gave cover for people to abuse children, the new law has expanded that cover to give a vastly increased number of opportunities for abuse to occur! This shows clearly that it is not ‘force’, nor even ‘reasonable force’, that Bradford etc were against, but correction. They obviously do not want children to be corrected. If you ask why would they not want children corrected, I would say that is a very good question, and I think I know the answer.

    Now in regard to Section 1:
    Parts (a) through (c) all describe the type of behaviour by children, which parents traditionally would have corrected by the use of force. In other words, in the past, not only would parents have stopped the behaviour occurring, but they would have sought by means of correction to have stopped that behaviour being repeated. Now however, under the new S59, all the parent is allowed to do is to stop the behaviour occurring, but not correct the behaviour so that it does not occur again. Why were the people who voted for this bill, so intent on stopping the correction of behaviour? What do they have against correction?

    In regards to part (d), reasonable force is allowed for the performing of the ‘normal daily tasks that are ‘incidental’ to good care and parenting’.
    I would suggest that the correction of children is the very opposite of being incidental to good parenting. The term ‘incidental’ means ‘secondary’, ‘of less importance’, ‘of minor consequence’, ‘occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation’. Thus if I am right in saying that correction is the opposite of being incidental to good parenting, then correction is not secondary but primary, is of more importance rather than of less importance, is of significant consequence as opposed to being of minor consequence, and occurs as a result of intention and calculation, as opposed to resulting from chance or without intention or calculation.

    The law thus says that reasonable force is allowed for those parts of parenting which are of little consequence, but not for those parts of parenting which are of great consequence. This is utter madness.

    Written by Renton

  • Labour Party Conference: MPs would oppose any smacking ban – UK

    Labour Party Conference:

    MPs would oppose any smacking ban

    Children & Young People Now
    24 September 2008

    Children’s Secretary Ed Balls has voiced his opposition to a ban on smacking children and said the majority of MPs would not support a ban if there was ever a free vote in Parliament on the matter.

    http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/login/848285/

  • MP’s survey shows concerns

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southlandtimes/4696337a6568.html

    MP’s survey shows concerns

    By NICOLA KEAN – The Southland Times | Thursday, 18 September 2008

    A survey by Invercargill MP Eric Roy shows a majority of Invercargill residents want to bring back smacking and ban cellphone use in cars.

    The survey was sent to 21,500 homes in Invercargill and asked questions on issues from health to a passenger train service.

    Almost 12,000 responses had come back and random sampling had been used to come up with statistics, Mr Roy said.

    A total of 83 percent of people responding to the survey wanted to repeal the “anti-smacking” legislation removing a legal defence for parents to hit their children.

    About 93 percent thought cellphone use in cars should be banned and 57 percent supported a passenger train service out of Invercargill.

    The survey was an annual event to keep an eye on the community’s views, he said.

    “I kind of need that stuff when we have debates in caucus about where we should go.” Clutha-Southland MP Bill English said he also surveyed constituents annually.

    Respondents were concerned about personal security, changing consumption patterns because of rising costs and broadband access.

    About 95 percent believed there should be student loan write-offs for health professionals bonded to stay in New Zealand.

  • The Repeal of Parental Authority and Turning Parents into Criminals

    The Repeal of Parental Authority and Turning Parents into Criminals

    This pamphlet will first look at Section 59; then at the Bill; then at what might be called the “Unintended Consequences” of the Bill; then finally make some recommendations.

    When we changed websites these brochures were lost in the change. Sorry this was not picked up until now. We have been asked to put these back on our website. This brochure was written half way through the Section 59 debate.

  • THE CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CORPORAL CORRECTION-For Printing out

    For printing out and giving away:

    Christian Foundations

    What does the Bible have to say about…
     Why we need to smack
     What we use to smack
     What we are trying to achieve
     How we do it
     The tongue-lashing alternative

    When we changed websites these brochures were lost in the change. Sorry this was not picked up until now. We have been asked to put these back on our website. These brochures were written before Sue Bradford’s Section 59 Bill was pulled out of the Ballot.