King John ignores the shrieks at his peril” or What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Nelson Mail Opinion Piece by Chris Salt
September 8, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
In an opinion piece from the Nelson Mail (5 Sept. 2009) entitled – “King John ignores the shrieks at his peril”, Chris Salt, former police inspector and Riwaka tourism operator looks, at the question: What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Chris holds a masters degree in public sector management and takes a keen interest in issues related to social justice and the role of government…… Chris Salt wrote……
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.
Section 59 “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast” says PM John Key
September 4, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
The Prime Minister acknowledged this morning on Radio Live that the current Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 – the so-called anti-smacking legislation promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford – is “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast”. He made this comment in an interview with Michael Laws on RadioLive at 11:40 AM today Friday, 4 September 2009.
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.
A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime
July 28, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009
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.
(dis)Honest to God: How Not to Argue about the Smacking Referendum
July 27, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Dr. Glenn Peoples responds to liberal Ian Harris.
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.
BIG NEWS Report: Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research”… Why? In order to promote their VoteYes Campaign?
June 28, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
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. Read more
Barnardos drop legal threat re Vote No CIR YouTube Video
June 25, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
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)
CIR critic’s forced sex-smacking argument fails
June 24, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Dr Seuss’s guide to John Key on CIR
June 23, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Green MP Sue Bradford’s Attack on Democracy
June 22, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
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!
Anti-Smacking Law ‘Has Made No Difference’ – Law Society
May 21, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
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
Did Green MP Sue Bradford con the gullible into believing that her ‘anti-smacking’ legislation was needed to end Child Abuse?
May 19, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Crime, Moral Values, Violence
A Growing list of child homicides in New Zealand suggests that the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 has had no positive impact whatsoever on reducting the incidence of child abuse and child homicides in New Zealand. If anything the problem has become worse. The legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, that criminalises every parent that uses any form of force “for the purpose of correction” must be repealed. The latest shocking report of yet another child homicide must cause all decent-minded citizens to cry out “Enough is enough! We must fix this disasterous problem!” Read more
No trial in Christian right to smack case
November 15, 2008 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
By SALLY KIDSON – The Nelson Mail | Friday, 14 November 2008
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
Dad Argues for right to hit son
December 7, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
The Nelson Mail, Friday, 07 December 2007
By SALLY KIDSON – A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region’s first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.
Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent’s right to use “reasonable force” when disciplining a child.
The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.
The Empresses’ new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!
July 27, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-Law in Gothenburg, Sweden. President of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org)
One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member’s Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform – and to warn – the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.
How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill
April 27, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007
If Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking bill’ is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for “correction” purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying “force” for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to “time-out” or “naughty-mat” zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of “correction”. The intention of Bradford’s flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for “correction” by parents or those in the place of parents.
Legal Opinion by QC Shows How Good Parents Will Be Criminalised by Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill
March 11, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
United Future MP Gordon Copeland has recently received a legal opinion he commissioned from Peter McKenzie QC, dealing with the effect of Green MP Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill, on the actions of parents who remove their kids using “reasonable force”, against their will, to “time-out zones” for disruptive and defiant behaviour. He concluded that under the current amendments to the bill, parents would be committing an act of criminal assault for such actions, for which there would be no defence in law when an element of correction was involved. The current law does allow for a defence for parents for the use of “reasonable force” in such situations where they face a charge of “asault”, but only if their actions specifically involve disciplinary correction of the child. This defence would be removed if Bradford’s bill becomes law. Mr Mckenzie’s legal opinion is set out below in full.
Well over 80% Oppose Bradford’s ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
November 21, 2006 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
Press Release 21/11/06
The Society agrees with the 87% of New Zealanders who hold strongly to the view that parents should be able to smack their children without fear of breaking the law (Today’s on-line Stuff News Poll). Clearly the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, as evidenced by the results of numerous nation-wide polls over the last few years, vehemently oppose Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill that seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Her bill, which was reported back to parliament yesterday from the Justice and Electoral Committee, with significant amendments as well as a bill name change (!); if passed into law, would criminalise every parent and person in the place of a parent, who used any form of force against a child in the context of and/or for the purpose of loving corrective discipline.
Swedish child abuse increases despite anti-smacking laws
July 31, 2006 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Press Release 31/07/06
Non-government child advocate lobby groups in NZ have urged police to confirm that police officers will not arrest parents for smacking their children, should smacking become a criminal offence if Section 59 is removed from the Crimes Act, upon the passage of Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill into law. In effect, what they are doing is asking police to ignore certain criminal offences when smacking is reported to Police by Child Youth and Family (CYF).
Well, it’s not working in Sweden. In 1979, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking.
Swedish Parents Kill 258 of their children (1965-1999)
July 29, 2006 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Media Report 28/07/06
Sweden has been hailed by Green MP Sue Bradford as an enlightened country where anti-smacking legislation has had a significant impact on reducing the number of child homicides committed by parents. She wants to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which provides a defence of “reasonable force” to parents, or those in the place of parents, charged with smacking their children for the purpose of corrective (domestic) discipline. She claims Sweden’s child homicide rate is one case every four years, as opposed to one every month in New Zealand (Close Up TV One 19 July). Her call for the repeal of Section 59 is based on lies, deceit and shoddy reasoning.In Sweden 258 children under the age of 16 years were killed by their own parents between the years 1965 and 1999 – an average rate of about seven child homicides per year – over a 35 year time period when legislation had been in place for some time that banned smacking. These figures are based on a major published study carried out by researchers from the University of Stockholm and reported in a leading Swedish newspaper The Daily News (May 12, 2006). They did not include child homicides committed by persons unknown to the child victims or those where the relationship of killer and victim was unknown.
Society Shares Qualified Swedish Lawyer’s Concerns Re S. 59
June 16, 2006 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Family Integrity says that Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who coming to New Zealand next month, will be the most qualified person ever to speak in New Zealand on the effect of Sweden’s smacking ban on that country’s social fabric.
Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba in Canada has been to New Zealand twice reporting on her research trips to Sweden – all paid for by the Swedish government. Plunket, Barnardos, the Children’s and Families’ Commissioners, UNICEF, EPOCH and others, who were all happy to listen to Dr Durrant, will at last be able to speak face to face with someone who not only lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish, but someone who, as a lawyer there, deals directly with the interface between the law and its application to society. It appears this interface is savagely chewing up many children and families, leaving a trail of permanent damage. But it is all done in the best interests of the child, they say.
Minister confirms no NZ Court ruling on meaning of S. 59 re "a person in the place of a parent"
June 6, 2006 by David
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Office of Hon Mark Burton, M.P. for Taupo. Minister of Justice. 6 June 2006.
Dear David
Thank you for your email of 22 February 2006 regarding section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. Your email to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment has been referred to me for direct response as these matters fall within my portfolio responsibiliities as Minister of Justice.
As Minister of Justice, I am not able to provide you with legal advice, and this response to your email should not be interpreted as such. However, I can make some general comments about the interpretation of section 59.
‘Anti-Smacking’ Lobby Submissions Analysed
May 29, 2006 by David
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Family Integrity representatives attended the first sitting of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee last Thursday to consider submissions on MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59.
It was a showcase of the “heavies” lined up in favour of repeal: Save the Children, EPOCH, Familes Commission, UNICEF, Parent.org, Barnardos, Relationship Services, CCS, IHC and the Commissioner for Children. Each of these was totally in favour of repeal, and each was also absolutely opposed to any amendment or attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force”. It was almost as if they were reading from the same script as each one mentioned the following 8 points:
NZ Police confirm repeal of s. 59 criminalises parents who discipline by smacking
February 24, 2006 by David
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Friday, 24 February 2006
On 11 August 2005, Dr A Jack of the Legal Services of the NZ Police, wrote to Mr Craig S. Smith, National Director Family Integrity. His letter, which has been brought to the attention of parliament by Judith Collins MP, is reproduced below with minor editorial additions in square brackets that take account of of Dr Jack’s omissions when referring to s. 59, as well as clarifying some points.
