Latest SPCS News

BIG NEWS Report: Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research”… Why? In order to promote their VoteYes Campaign?

Barnardos have been interviewing New Zealand children by phone to see what they think about getting smacked. The question they asked:

Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?”

……. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don’t know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn’t understand what ” let off” meant- ……..Nor is it clear whether “adults” included strangers.

They interviewed stressed kids who called the What’s Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That’s a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate.

Barnardos’ media release [on their 'research' - used to promote their Yes Vote Campaign in the Citizen's Initiated Referendum] says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault. They lied. They asked if adults should be let off. But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence [to be let off], ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they’re discharged without conviction – not merely being found not guilty. The Barnardos release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well, just one actually! The report provides all comments provided by the kids – quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But ONLY ONE said parents should be let off with a warning, and NONE said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media.

For more go to : http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/06/barnardos-ask-kids-about-smacking-and.html

Simon Barnett Explains the Referendum in 90 Seconds

Barnardos drop legal threat re Vote No CIR YouTube Video

A stunning satirical video posted on the YouTube website that lampoons the arrogant, ‘professional’ “we know best” ”YesVote” child ‘experts’, who hate the thought of the majority of NZ parents voting “NO!!” to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law in the forthcoming CIR, has got up the noses of Barnardos officials. They formally contacted the author and star of the video, a Mr Renton Maclachlan from Porirua, who interviews a fictitious Mr Dennis Morris-Traveler - spokesperson for the Vote Yes lobby group… Barnardos demanded that he immediately remove his offending video from YouTube. They also contacted YouTube directly to get the video removed.

 They followed the initial contact with a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action. The Barnardo’s lawyer said to Maclachlan that her clients rights were violated by him purporting to be an employee of Barnardos, to officially speak for it and represent its view. Maclachlan sought legal advice and after an exchange of letters, Barnardos decided to proceed no further.

 The YouTube Title and Description for the video are as follows:

 NZ Correction Referendum: Vote Yes? No! SATIRE

BEWARE. WARNING. SATIRE. COMEDY. Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth, enlightening, and entertaining interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes Vote campaign…

See at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8

 For those with a more serious frame of mind wanting concise information explaining why they should vote “No” (and NOT “Yes”) in the forthcoming Citizen’s Initiated Referendum (CIR) … view Maclachlan’s other videos on YouTube.

The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘What it says!’ – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59

‘Renton Maclachlan brings 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!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4

The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘Why correction is needed.’
‘Renton Maclachlan brings a clear and concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.’
http://www…youtube.com/watch?v=HsnT8ul2f28)

Featured Videos

More SPCS News

CIR critic’s forced sex-smacking argument fails

Dr Seuss’s guide to John Key on CIR

Green MP Sue Bradford’s Attack on Democracy

Media Release 19 June

Green MP Sue Bradford is infuriated that both John Key and Phil Goff have told the media that they will not be voting in the forthcoming Citizens’ Initiated Referendum (CIR) dealing with the ‘anti-smacking law’, because, like her, they consider the question being put to the public is silly, ambiguous and renders the CIR exercise pointless and a complete waste of tax-payers’ money. She is incensed that these politicians are not supporting her expensive “Vote Yes” campaign to retain the anti-smacking law she championed and is distressed that their decision not to vote might convince some who intend to support the “Yes” vote, that voting is a complete waste of time. 

On the one hand Bradford tells the New Zealand public that the referendum question is so ambiguous and silly that it renders the exercise pointless and on the other hand she craves, indeed pleads with them, to vote “Yes” in support of the legislation she championed. This is blatant hypocrisy. The tragedy is that she doesn’t comprehend that it is. She is even prepared to publicly criticise two gentlemen – Key and Goff – with years of collective experience in managing and disciplining their own children – for exercising their right not to vote in the CIR.

The Society commends Mr Key and Mr Goff for taking this incredibly bold and brave stand not to vote as it will assure all New Zealanders that politicians like them really do want to hear the genuine opinions of ordinary New Zealanders on the subject, rather than their own, possibly self-serving ones. This ever-so gracious and noble move on their part to sacrifice their own privilege to exercise a democratic right in deference to that of the general public, is so very laudable (we’re being facetious if you haven’t noticed!). It is reminiscent of the bold and brave actions of great field commanders in time of war – such as Hannibal – who chose to forgo the privileges of rank to eat the maggot-infested food dished out to ordinary soldiers and sleep next to the field latrines with his men.

New Zealanders must grasp that Super Commanders Key and Goff are genuinely and intensely interested in the views of the common folk who sacrifice their lives on a daily basis for the children of this land. That’s why they have not sought to discredit an instrument of democracy – the CIR – just days before it is to be unfurled. It would be unconscionable for such men of such superlative integrity to pour scorn on their country’s flag prior to it being unfurled or after it is flying. That’s why, they have said nothing whatsoever that would denigrate, discredit or demean or call into question an instrument of democracy – the CIR – (one they were actually instrumental in setting up) …. Yeah right!

Abortions Authorised on Mental Health Grounds a Farce – Dr Margaret Sparrow

Media Release 19 June 2009

The Abortion Law Reform Association, [ALRANZ] on 16 June issued a media release in response to the release by Statistics New Zealand of the abortion statistics for 2008. Dr Margaret Sparrow, President of ALRANZ stated:

 “We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”

Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.

The government has a grave responsibility to protect the lives of its future citizens who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. What action is the government taking to ensure that the lives of unborn children receive the full protection of the law?

Abortion, the violent dismemberment of a child in the womb is the ultimate in child abuse. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world. The government is sadly opposed to the national referendum on smacking, holding that it is a criminal offence to allow a light smack on a child as part of good parenting. The message the government is giving is that it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb but unlawful to smack the child after it is born. The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards challenges the Prime Minister, John Key to tell the community what action his government is going to take to stop the unlawful violence and child abuse imposed on our unborn children in our public hospitals, sanctioned by his government and funded by the taxpayer?

Anti-Smacking Law ‘Has Made No Difference’ – Law Society

Media Release Family First – 21 May 2009

Family First NZ says that the Law Society has admitted that the anti-smacking law has made no difference to NZ’s unacceptable rate of child abuse. Chair of the Family Law Section of the Law Society Paul Maskell was asked on a radio interview this week whether the law has done anything to reduce child abuse from the perspective of the legal profession. He responded ‘we haven’t noticed any change at all…The change in law really has made no difference’. He agreed that abusers don’t even know what the law is and don’t really care. Read more