After the 1990 referendum when 70 percent of respondents voted for MMP Mike Moore said the people had not spoken they had screamed.  What can we say about the anti smacking referendum?  The people did not scream, they shrieked!  The difference is that Jim Bolger listened but John Key chooses to interpret a shriek as a whimper.  According to him and I quote, 1.6 million New Zealanders, “still have some concerns and want a high degree of comfort”.  It is not concern or comfort Mr Key should be addressing but all those ‘No’ boxes containing a big tick.

The issue now goes well beyond to smack or not to smack.  It’s about our democracy.  Correct me if I am wrong, but we have never given our prime ministers a mandate to ignore us, but to represent us.  The received wisdom holds that democracy is supposed to heed the will of the people.  A condescending attempt at appeasement demeans the clear will of the electorate. 

The instances when politicians have used their imagined mandate to act against the public will and common sense are now legion.  Lowering the legal drinking age and then giving the liquor industry the green light to concoct and advertise an array of teenage elixirs was breathtakingly irresponsible.  Privatising the telecom industry and power grid without ensuring there would be effective competition and significant re-investment defies comprehension.  Insult has followed injury.  We have now saddled our younger generation with an unbridled drinking culture we actually wanted to harness and allowed excessive profit taking by key industries. 

Unless John Key acts decisively on the anti-smacking legislation we can all cry bitter tears for our democracy.  It will have become a charade.  When elected representative deny the will of the people by hiding behind the law the time to make citizens initiated referenda binding on government has come.

But that is only half the story. Pointing the bone at our elected representatives is just one side of a tarnished coin.  We need to look at ourselves.  The old adage that we get the government we deserve reminds us that we are responsible for its quality.  If we fail to protect our interests we can hardly complain when our ancient democratic rights are ignored.  Perhaps after 800 years another King John needs to be dragged to Runnymede.

At a time like this two historians lurking in the back pages of history need to be lifted out and dusted off.  Professor Alexander Tyler, writing three centuries back and Sir Arnold Toynbee, who completed an epic study of 21civilisations some 70 years ago, would not be surprised by today’s events.  Tyler concluded that nations pass through an eight stage process, lifting themselves out of bondage to grasp liberty and abundance before sliding back into subjugation.  He traced this downward spiral through complacency to apathy and then dependency.  From there the path back to bondage is only a short hop.

Toynbee identified five states that defined a civilisation in decline – truancy, abandon, guilt, drift and promiscuity (not of the sexual kind).  He concluded that civilisations mark their demise with an uncritical acceptance of just about anything, over indulgence in distracting entertainments and a self defeating attitude bedded in a sense of powerlessness.  The fact that Tyler and Toynbee were separated by centuries and yet reached similar conclusions is truly spooky. 

If our elected representatives at either the national level or local level can get away with dismissing the will of the people or denying us an effective voice we have to ask some serious questions about ourselves.  Are we too distracted by entertainments, too complacent, too fatalistic to critically examine the state of our nation?  Are we too apathetic to fight for real change?  When our governing institutions rely on legislation or policy weapons to say you do what we want or we will make you, we have a problem. If we append to that a national psyche wedded to a nanny state we have dependency.  If we then add to this mix a government that thinks it can do what it wants despite the rest of us we don’t have democracy any more.  All that is left is a looming bondage and the spectral shadows of two dead historians who saw it coming because it has happened before.  

Published with permission of author Chris Salt.

Source: Nelson Mail 5 September 2009

Recent Articles on the Issue from NZ Herald

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10595856

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596584

The Rt. Hon. John Key might be very astute on financial matters but he appears to have little idea how the law should work in a true democracy. He will not be Prime Minister forever. Another government might tell the police to ignore his instructions and enforce the law as it is currently written.

John Boscawen’s Private Member’s Bill is almost identical to an amendment to the Bradford bill that Key was very much in favour of. If there was a referendum on the question of keeping the existing law or going back to the original Section 59, the Society is sure that the majority of New Zealanders would vote for a law change. Granted, there were a handful of doubtful verdicts which the jury may have got wrong over a period of about 15 years prior to the law change. However, the law did not need changing. But that is now history.

ACT’s John Boscawen bill is a genuine compromise and certainly a lot better than a law that the Prime Minister described today on Radio Live as “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast”.

The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.

“Smacking and taking a child to time out are now criminal acts in New Zealand’ said Mr Copeland. “But only when they are used for the purpose of correction that is to rebuke or punish, in order to improve a child’s behaviour”.

“At the heart of this debate therefore there are really two questions.
Firstly do children need to be corrected?”

“Most of us would answer this question with an emphatic “yes”. However  some would just as emphatically answer “no” because they believe that children are  born virtuous and will automatically, as if by instinct, grow up to become unselfish & loving adults!  I believe, with the wisdom of the ages, that  both children & and adults need to be corrected.”

“Secondly should parents be permitted by law to smack or take their children to time out as part of good & loving parenting?”

“I believe that the answer to this question is also yes. Note that, consistent with the Referendum question, the qualification is that we are here talking about these correction techniques used by good parents. I am not saying that hitting with a jug core or locking a child in a dark room are acceptable correction techniques, because they are not! Those are the actions of bad parents who need to be corrected (there’s that word again) by the law of the land”.

“Are we capable of making that distinction clear in law? Of course we are and we should. The training, education and correction of children, accompanied by large lashings of love & good fun, are the central tasks of parenting. Simply stated that is what good parents do!”

“When it comes to correction parents should have the freedom, under the law, to use a variety of ways to achieve the outcome which they seek, namely an improvement in behaviour, in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances & age of the child. This includes appropriate verbal correction, smacking, timeout and as the child grows older, grounding & the loss of privileges. Parenting on a day by day basis is never one dimensional.”

“I believe that these decisions must be made by parents and by parents alone! The State has no role to play and it is wrong for politicians to outlaw smacking and the use of time out in these circumstances. They have no mandate to do so. This matter was not widely raised in the 2005 Elections.  The issue made its way onto the floor of Parliament through a private Members Bill.”

“The claim that smacking and time out should be criminalised to bring the correction of children into line with the correction of adults is a fallacy.”

“We correct adults through fines, community service and prison sentences but none of these apply to children for the simple reason that they are children! The law always has & always will make that distinction.”

“I’m delighted that there is to be a Referendum on this issue and the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand” is crystal clear. Let’s use the opportunity to deliver a message to the Beehive which politicians will ignore at their peril because this issue really is for the sake of our children, our grandchildren & all generations to come.”

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who left United Future to become an Independent because of his strong opposition to the criminalisation of smacking and time out for the purposes of correcting children.
Contact: 
Phone 04 388 9805
Cell 027 472 6998

Ian Harris tells us (“Honest to God,” Dominion Post, [Dominion Post. Saturday July 11, 2009. Page B5], reproduced at the YesVote website at http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/07/17/the-bibles-harsh-view-rejected/) that we should reject the “harsh views” on child rearing found in the Bible.

Mr Harris, unfortunately, joins many of those who promote the criminalisation of good parents by muddying the waters. He notes, for example, that someone who defends the right to use physical discipline also believes that children (like adults) are sinners. He then announces that since “progressive” Christians (by which he seems to mean those who no longer accept Christian theology) realise that this is based on an antiquated view, we should likewise reject the right to use physical discipline and we should criminalise those who do.

Read the full article here.

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

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.

“This is backed up by an online poll of 3,829 people on the NZ Herald website yesterday which showed that 89% believed that the anti-smacking law had had no effect on child abuse, Curia Market Research in March where 77% believed that the law change would not reduce the rate of child abuse, and 87% of respondents on a littlies.co.nz website last year who felt the law was ineffective,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. For more, see below (Family First Media Release 21 May 2009. www.familyfirst.org.nz).

“The underlying issues identified by UNICEF and CYF – including drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown and dysfunction, and poverty and stress – continue to be ignored. Green MP Sue Bradford admitted that the law was never intended to solve the problem of child abuse.”

“We want the problem of child abuse tackled but it’s time we got realistic about the causes, and the actual families at risk,” says Mr McCoskrie. “People who opposed the law simply want some honesty in the debate, and laws targeted at the real causes.”

Murdered boy endured final weeks of torture
Saturday May 16, 2009
By Beck Vass

….. For the seven days before Duwayne Pailegutu died, he was kept inside his mother and stepfather’s small flat in Nelson – so no one could see he had been beaten so badly he was paralysed, incontinent, and slowly suffocating on his own blood.

The left side of his body was disabled after repeated blows to the right side of his head which caused a stroke, and he struggled to eat or drink.

In addition to the haemorrhage, an autopsy found at least 10 deep bruises to his scalp – some of them inflicted by the shoes of his stepfather as the little boy cowered in the corner of his Fergusson St bedroom.

A further 75 bruises were found over the rest of his small body.

For the week before he died, Duwayne sat, partially paralysed and fitted with nappies, slowly suffocating on blood which he inhaled into his lungs as he vomited during “exercises” in which his stepfather made repeated blows to his stomach to make him cough up blood.

In an attempt to “shock” Duwayne into movement, Joachim dipped his paralysed foot into boiling water, leaving the largest of four scald wounds on his right leg……

When he became frustrated that Duwayne could not move, Joachim threw him against a wall.

And for the six weeks before his death on July 2 last year, Duwayne had been living with three broken ribs.

For full report: see:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10572666

The trial of a former Nelson man fighting for what he says is his right as a Christian to hit his son will not go ahead, after the Crown decided to offer no evidence in the case.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4761240a11.html

Rowan James Flynn, 53, was scheduled to stand trial on five charges of assaulting his 12-year-old son, when he was aged 11, and one charge of assaulting a female.

Mr Flynn, who now lives in Christchurch, also faced two charges of leaving a child under 14 without reasonable supervision.

The father of four told the Nelson Mail last year he had been charged after his son called the police.

He had hit his son about five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a “tiny issue” that blew up. He said he also “clipped” his son around the face about a week after the incident with the wooden spoon. He told the Nelson Mail he believed his actions were justified by the Bible.

Nelson District Court Judge Tony Zohrab discharged Mr Flynn on Thursday after the Crown offered no evidence on the assault charges. The two charges of leaving a child under 14 without reasonable supervision were withdrawn Thursday morning. Crown prosecutor Janine Bonifant said the Crown had decided not to offer any evidence in the case, which was different from saying it did not believe the alleged offences had taken place.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk said the dismissal of the charges had nothing to do with the merits of the case, the quality of evidence or the amendment to Section 59 defence.

“This was a clear case where the interests of the child had to take precedence, and the defendant in the Nelson case is well aware of those reasons, which are behind the Crown’s decision not to offer any evidence,” Mr McGurk said. “I am absolutely confident that the actions of my officers investigating the allegations against the father were thoroughly professional and the decision to prosecute was correct and was in the public interest.”

Mr Flynn told the Nelson Mail he hadn’t been told why the case wasn’t being heard, but he had been looking forward to going to trial.

Mr Flynn said he thought the case had been dropped because the Crown was worried it would be exposed for “what they had done, because the whole lot was lies”.

“This is consistent with all other polls done throughout the year, including research commissioned by Family First – that there is an 80 per cent opposition to the anti-smacking law because most people know that smacking for the purpose of correction is not child abuse.”3

- with NZPA

Well we have a new government, but while all the attention has been focusing on John Key and the National party, the latest member of the Green party to make it into parliament has received very little attention.

His name is Kevin Hague, and he will be a concern for those of us who care about marriage and family issues in NZ.

Firstly, he is the former head of the NZ AIDS Foundation – a gay lobby group that has been responsible for some of the most immoral and obscene “safe” sex campaigns in NZ (one recent campaign even involved a website which gave tips on “cruising” – the practice of meeting strangers in public places for anonymous homosexual sex).

Secondly, in a recent interview with GAYNZ.com he stated that he considers the following issues a priority for his time in parliament…

1. Gay adoption
2. Full gay marriage
3. “Resourcing” for gay youth groups
4. Removing the right of NZ schools to say no to gay activist groups like Rainbow Youth

Remember the Greens already have Metiria Turei back again – the Green MP who has a bill to legalise gay adoption in NZ, and who lists “anarchist activism” as one of the aspects of her life experience over the last 20 years.

Make no mistake about it, Hague is an MP who is almost certainly going to be of concern to those of us who care about marriage and family issues in this country.

http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/new-green-mp-likely-to-promote-very-worrying-policies/

The Society is not surprised that over half the sample (56%) of more than 600 adult “primary caregivers” of children aged between six and 13, who were interviewed as part of a report into children’s television viewing habits; were unable to identify 8.30 p.m. as the time after which programmes that are NOT suitable for children are shown on television The report containing this statistic entitled Seen and Heard, dated 6 May 2008, was commissioned by the BSA – the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

In response, the Families Commission issued a media release, calling for the 8.30 p.m. “watershed time” – to be more widely publicised by broadcasters. But is this an adequate response if the Commission is truly concerned about certain so-called “adult-only” material – pornography, sexual violence, graphic violence, blasphemy and obscenity – being viewed, or potentially viewed, by tens of thousands of our country’s children and young persons every night of the year from 8.30 p.m. onwards? Society president John Mills says the Society says “it is a totally inadequate response” and notes “we have written to the Chief Commissioner, Dr Rajen Prasad, pointing this out and called for more effective solutions from him to the problem of children and young persons being exposed to unsuitable, morally corrosive and corrupting television content.”

The Society, together with Media Matters (formerly called Viewers for Television Excellence or VoTE), has been calling for some years for the “watershed time” to be moved from 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. AND for this time to be more widely and regularly publicised by all television broadcasters. These organisations and many others, also want the BSA to deal properly with complaints over standards of taste and decency and enforce proper standards. Such calls appear to have fallen on deaf ears and have certainly not been supported by Families Commission with its 40 full-time equivalent staff funded by tax-payers.

VoTE and SPCS have pointed out that New Zealand has one of the earliest “watershed times” among OECD countries and a move, at least to 9 p.m., if not 9.30 p.m., would be a positive move in the right direction. “It would help safeguard our children and young persons from exposure to the corrupting, pernicious and morally corrosive influence of television violence, sleazy pornography and repetitive obscenity and profanity,” says Mr Mills. “Of course the change in the watershed time needs to be backed up with good communication to caregivers from responsible broadcasters and government agencies,” he adds.

Society executive director David Lane says…

“It is well-known to informed viewers that offensive and objectionable content, including obscenity, gratuitous sexually explicit material, sexual violence, etc. all regularly feature on free-to-air and paid television programmes from 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m. This so-called exclusive “adults-only” time slot is a farce as it is a time period during which a significant number, if not the majority of younger children aged from 11 to 13 years and young persons aged 14 to 17 years, are still up and actively watching TV or engaged in other activities in rooms where a TV is operating. Research commissioned by the BSA has been published that shows that the vast majority of children and young persons are indeed accessing television programmes during this time period when so-called “Adult only content” is screening,”

“The Society believes that the link between the repetitive, addictive and compulsive viewing by children and young persons of objectionable gratuitous content, is morally corrosive and its effect upon a number of vulnerable individuals, leads to violence, criminal activity, sexual dysfunctions etc” Lane says.

“The Ministry of Culture and Heritage has identified New Zealand as having the least regulated broadcasting system in the world,” says Mills “and David Lane has been responsible for putting together a Society submission on proposed changes to the regulatory environment to deal with changing digital media formats etc, which has been submitted to the Ministry.