All parents who correct their children will from now on be committing a criminal act, and liable to prosecution.

Before today the law said it was right for parents to correct their children. With the passing of Bradford's bill, it is now wrong to do so. The only parents not threatened by the law are those who never correct their kids. Such parents used to be called bad parents, and those who corrected were called good parents. The reverse now applies.

The much heralded John Key amendment changes nothing. After saying their bottom line was that parents not be criminalised, National has block voted with Labour and the Greens to criminalise parents.

Don't be confused by the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that all correction, not just smacking, is now illegal. Read the bill for yourself if you don't believe me.

'Nothing' [in the rest of the bill] 'or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.'

Since all correction requires force, but all force for correction is now illegal, all correction is illegal.

The lunatics are running the asylum. They need to be removed.

It's now the people against Parliament.

by Renton, Porirua

Dear Friends,

I'll just forward this from a Family First press release:

Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.
Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”
“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”
“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”
Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -
1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?
The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".
“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking - despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4062034a6479.html
New law won't stop Bob from smacking
PATRICK CREWDSON - The Dominion Post | Thursday, 17 May 2007


Bob McCoskrie smacks his children, and Sue Bradford's law change won't make him stop.

The national director of Family First New Zealand, a vociferous opponent of the Green MP's bill to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act, said the "confusing legislation" that passed last night would not changed the way he disciplined his three children - just the way he described it.

"I'll continue to do it in a reasonable way and I'll continue to do it as a back-up when other non-physical methods of discipline haven't worked."

After obtaining an opinion from Queen's Counsel Grant Illingworth, Family First cautioned parents yesterday not to incriminate themselves to police.

Mr McCoskrie said that, under the amendment, parents could still use reasonable force for the purpose of prevention, but not for correction.

"What the QC is saying is that if you ever do get prosecuted for giving a light smack, simply say it was for the purpose of preventing bad behaviour, not correcting bad behaviour, which shows just how ridiculous the law is."

Supporters of the bill relaxed yesterday as it passed with greater political support than initially expected.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said she was hugely relieved.

She had supported outright repeal of section 59 and had some reservations about how the amendment would be interpreted, but was happy a compromise had been reached to "allay the fears that had been whipped up among parents around criminalisation".

Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge said he was delighted, but the challenge now was to ensure parents were equipped to deal with behavioural problems without resorting to force.

In a rearguard action against the amendment, opponents yesterday took out full-page newspaper advertisements seeking signatures to force a referendum on child discipline at the next election.

The advertisements warned parents that they would be criminalised if they smacked their children, and said police had confirmed they would have to investigate any complaints made against parents who smacked or put their children in time out.

But Police Association president Greg O'Connor said he had been misquoted.

Police would continue to investigate complaints of assault - just as they always had - but putting a child in time-out would not land a parent in jail.

A truly sad day for New Zealand.

The final vote in Parliament was 113 in favour and 8 against the bill to criminalise parents by making the correction of children a criminal offense, a subset of assault, worth as much as two years in jail.

The passage of this bill has tipped New Zealand into the cauldron of socialist totalitarianism. This is more sophisticated than the old USSR technique of ruling by sheer terror and sealing the borders. This new version weakens all resolve by offering every financial support, even for the most irresponsible of lifestyles (the excesses of the social welfare system), and then it controls children's affections by the intense indoctrination of the compulsory secular school system and ease of access to all manner of inappropriate viewing and listening media, and then it controls parents by threatening through CYFS and other interventionist bureaucracies to take away even their few hours of caring for their children each day, after the schools have already robbed them of their affection and loyalty.

“If the major political parties had allowed a conscience vote on this bill as originally promised, the bill would have been dead and buried at the 2nd reading,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. “It is tragic that while the government turns a blind eye to the major problems of gang violence, drunken teen parties, the ‘P’ epidemic, violence in schools, violence towards police, gambling addiction, housing concerns, and breakdown in families, they have found plenty of energy and time to pass a law that targets good parents doing a great job.”

Bob forgot to mention the abortion industry which encourages mothers to pre-meditate upon killing their own children and the assisted suicide and euthanasia movements which want to change the public's attitude toward death from the curse that it is, brought in as a result of the original sin of our original parents, Adam and Eve, to a welcomed friend, one that would soon be introduced to babies born with even the most minor defects, including the non-preferred gender, and into hospital practice for the helpless, the cantakerous, the demented. And let's not forget the porn industry, which is defiling more and more school children on and off campus. All these things promote a culture of death and despondency, purposelessness and meaninglessness. But they foment dysfunction, and that helps fire up a perpetual motion and income-generating circus of social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, counsellors, foster agencies, foster homes, women's refuges, politicians and innumerable child-advocacy groups, all feeding off this increased dysfunction. Sadly, none of these groups ever focus on working themselves out of a job.

A Family First press release tells how a leading QC has recommended to parents that, now Bradford's bill has passed, they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour. This new Section 59 makes child correction a criminal act. Grant Illingworth QC said, “The difficulty...is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child [actions allowed by this new Section 59]. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”

Mr Illingworth went on to say that this is of enormous importance, for if a parent intended to "correct" a child's disruptive and offensive behaviour, and this intention came to light in the course of an investigation, that parent would have no defense against a charge of criminal assault, even though the force used would appear identical to that which another parent might use simply to prevent the continuation of disruptive and offensive behaviour.

“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”

What Now?
One must evaluate one's options in the light of whether one's child rearing practices are likely to be incriminating and whether they are likely to come to the notice of either CYFS or the Police.

A police officer informed me last night that they will have to investigate any reported case of force used to correct. This will obviously be an interpretation on the part of whoever makes the complaint. But because this kind of complaint will fall under the category of "domestic violence", and the police have a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence, they will have to investigate. Remember, this includes a lot more than mere smacking. It is about any use of force: taking a child's arm, hand, shoulder to direct them in a certain direction when disruption, offense, criminal activity or harm are not at issue; confinement against the child's will; requiring dress and grooming codes to conform to your tastes when the child objects and a large section of society would find nothing offensive in the child's choices; and prohibiting your children from associating with persons or visiting premises about which you do not approve but which are not illegal or obviously harmful.

Parenting must start early. Train your children to think and believe and react as you do from day one. Do not expose them too much or too early to worldviews and ways of which you do not approve if you do not want them to develop a taste for them or a desire to try them out. Sending one's children to public schools takes on a very serious set of implications as a result....you must be prepared to have your children adopt ways of thinking, dressing, grooming, speaking, obeying, disobeying, attitudes and values that are not your own, for you will be virtually powerless to correct them. If anyone knows how to correct error or misguided or inappropriate or unhealthy or unwholesome or undesirable or ways that are just plain wrong....if anyone knows how to effect correction without the use of any kind of force, many others would like to hear about it. It appears to me that parents will be reduced to advisors of autonomous children. From my reading of UN documents and particularly of Michael Reid's book "From Innocents to Agents" (Maxim, 2006), that is precisely the objective of those behind this bill.

Some have suggested we get the Governor-General to withhold the Royal Assent.
I clearly recall that then GG Sir Paul Reeves signed into law a bill that forbids the GG from withholding the Royal Assent. He was GG from 1985 to 1990. Actually, I've had a look around the internet and can find no evidence of this, although I clearly remember it being discussed in the news of the day.

I did find this however:

"The last time a Monarch refused assent to a Bill (no Governor or Governor-General has ever done so) was during the reign of Queen Anne in 1708." (http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/2006/09/telling-lies-for-her-majesty-royal.html) (There is some very informative discussion on this website.)


"The Queen reigns, the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives" This is the simple rule that keeps things ticking along. Until the Parliament votes itself dictatorial powers and abolishes elections, the GG will not withhold Royal Assent.


From: http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=167, speech by Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys, 24 May 1996:

(Start Quote)
Constitutionalists differ as to what these powers [of the Governor-General] might be. I will give you five. There is no doubt about the first. Some would doubt the last. The five are:

(1) to appoint a Prime Minister;

(2) to dismiss a Prime Minister;

(3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament;

(4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and

(5) to refuse assent to legislation.


Examples of the use of all but the first of these powers are rare, and are always controversial. Indeed, the very rarity of their exercise gives rise to contentions that they have ceased to exist at all. That is particularly true of the last of them.
(End Quote)


So it would appear that we can forget thinking about that route.


What are some other alternatives?

I have already received copies of letters people have sent to MPs stating clearly that they will not obey this bill if it is passed into law. This is one way to react: simply disregard the law and be prepared to suffer the consequences. These include prosecution and a criminal record. Such a record will bar you from travel to some overseas destinations....the USA, for example, will not issue a visa to people with criminal records. It will bar you from certain occupations and job/career opportunities. But the most frightening prospect is having CYFS take your children. This will break your heart, crush your spirit, drain your assets and drive you deep into debt. And it is likely your children will also suffer REAL abuse at the hands of CYFS and foster homes.

Another is to decide to modify your child-rearing practices to what you think the law may be saying. This is extremely difficult for nobody knows what it says. It will require a number of test cases to establish precedents and definitions. Each test case, I would suggest, will represent another family chewed up and destroyed by this process.

Another would be to become very discreet about how you operate, that you train your children not to talk about anything that goes on or is discussed within your home. (Oh, darn....how does one train a child...would that not include correction and force?) You may want to monitor all your children's conversations. Again, children spending so much time at school, away from your guidance and influence, takes on a new perspective. Teachers, of course, will be instituting new safety programmes and children's rights programmes which will spell out to children what their parents can and cannot do. The legislation that was just passed is extremely vague, but the programmes in the schools will not be vague: they will be clear and extreme. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 of June 2006, outlines how all "academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups", etc., must be recruited in the monitoring of the implementation of laws such as the one just passed. This document equates any force, regardless of how light or reasonable, with violence, abuse, cruel and degrading punishment. (It is a fascinating read, 17 pages, at http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.)

One may also consider emigration to Australia. NZ passport holders only need to get on a plane. Once there you can stay as long as you like and take up employment immediately. There are only some social welfare benefits that would not kick in till you've been there for two years. Native English speakers can get jobs teaching English in local schools in many places in the world with few or no qualifications at all. I know people who have done exactly this in China, South Korea and Turkey. Those countries are not likely to have such insane legislation passed as we've just had any time soon. The USA and Canada are also possibilities. The USA has a lot of red tape to cut through to gain residency, but untold numbers of Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Americans have been pouring across the border for over 30 years virtually unchecked and seem to get permanent residency and jobs with little difficulty.

I'll have more information on Australia in another post soon.

Regards,


Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home....Our Castle

if Section59 is repealed - or replaced...
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

MEDIA RELEASE
16 MAY 2007

“I Was Preventing, Not Correcting, Bad Behaviour Officer!” - Advice to Parents

A leading QC has recommended to parents that they never acknowledge that they are “correcting” bad behaviour once the Anti-Smacking law is passed in Parliament.

“Because good parents who use reasonable force to effectively correct offensive or disruptive behaviour or defiance from a child will be exposed to criminal liability and investigation under the new anti-smacking law, it is essential that they receive good advice and protection,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First asked leading QC Grant Illingworth for his opinion regarding the new law.

Mr Illingworth said “The difficulty with the section is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child. But that cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that the section is self contradictory.”

“This means that "correction" will have to be given a somewhat artificial meaning that does not correspond with the ordinary use of language. The question is: what will "correction" be held to mean? This is a question of enormous importance because, if a parent intends "correction" then, even if the parent would otherwise have a defence, that defence will no longer be available by reason of s 59(2).”

“The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to correct a child's aberrant behaviour. And if that isn't silly, I don't know what is.”

Mr Illingworth responded to two scenarios presented by Family First, and how the new law could apply -

1. A child is having a tantrum in the supermarket because mum won’t buy that lolly, and mum gives the child a light smack on the bottom which brings the child under control. An observer reports the parent to the police. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

Illingworth QC - The mother who smacks the child lightly in the supermarket to stop a tantrum is arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour, so she has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".

2. A child throws a toy at his brother’s head. Mum tells him to go to his room. The child refuses. Mum grabs him by the arm and literally has to drag a screaming child, who is throwing his arms all around, to the room. The child tells his school teacher who rings CYF. Does the parent have a defence under s59?

The mother who drags her child to its room to stop violent behaviour towards a sibling is also arguably using reasonable force to prevent the child from continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour. She may, as well, be preventing further harm to the other child. She too has an apparent defence so long as her purpose is not "correction".

“The bottom line is that we have created a confusing law,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This is bad news for good parents who wish to parent within the law. The good news is that we do not have a blanket ban on smacking – despite the misrepresentation by the supporters of the law change.”

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

Hide Calls on Helen Clark and John Key to Allow Free Vote on Anti-Smacking Bill

from http://www.act.org.nz/hide_calls_on_helen_clark_and_john_key_to_allow_free_vote_on_anti_smacking_bill


15 May 2007


ACT Leader Rodney Hide has written to Helen Clark and John Key urging them to allow their MPs a free vote on Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill.

"It's all very well for John Key and Helen Clark to decide that they want to criminalise parents who smack their children – but it's wrong that they dictate that their MPs must vote for the Bill.

"I don't believe that the majority of Parliament is for this Bill. I believe, given the choice, the majority of Labour and National MPs would vote with ACT against this Bill. But there's only one way to find out: Have a free vote in Parliament. After all, if Helen and John think the Bill is so good, then they should have no problem allowing their MPs a free vote.

"Make no mistake this Bill criminalises parents who smack their children. The Bill states its purpose is to abolish the use of parental force for the purpose of correction. Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 and declares:

"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction."

"The amendment that John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to does nothing to alter the fact that parents who smack their children will be breaking the law. All it does is confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they will prosecute parents who smack their kids.

"Smacking parents may not be prosecuted but they will still be breaking the law and Sue Bradford's Bill makes good, loving parents criminals.

"It's an atrocious Bill. That's why we need a free vote" said Rodney Hide.

ENDS

To access a copy of Rodney Hide's letter to Helen Clark and John Key go to http://www.act.org.nz/files/m/downloads/Letter%20To%20Clark%20And%20Key.pdf.

RODNEY HIDE MP
Leader ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom
Parliament Buildings Wellington Telephone 04 470 6630 Fax 04 473 3532
Electorate Office: Unit A, 11-13 Clovernook Road, Newmarket, PO Box 9209 Newmarket AUCKLAND
Telephone 09 522 7464 Fax 09 523 0472
http://www.RodneyHide.com
http://www.act.org.nz

May 1407 Clark and Key
14 May 2007

Right Honourable Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings

John Key MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament Buildings

Dear Helen and John

On Wednesday 16 May we have the final vote on Sue Bradford’s Crimes (Substituted
Section 59) Amendment Bill.

I write to ask you to allow your respective MPs a free vote in the same way all other parties have allowed their MPs to vote as their conscience determines.

The Bill is controversial with public polls reporting 83 percent of New Zealanders opposing it.

In Epsom 68 percent of voters are opposed; only 21 percent in favour.

John, when you opposed the Bill, you asked the Prime Minister the following question:
“If the Prime Minister thinks Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill is such a good bill and that the 83 percent of New Zealanders who have consistently opposed it are so
completely wrong, why will she not simply give her caucus a free vote?”

It’s a good question. Of course, at the time the vote was tight. In fact, you suggested that Sue Bradford’s Bill would not pass if Labour allowed their MPs a free vote. Presumably the vote is less tight as you and some of your caucus are now supporting it. Surely we are now in a better position to have a free vote and see what Parliament actually thinks.

John, you once thought it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to allow her caucus a free vote, why isn’t it a good idea for you now to do the same? It would be good for our democracy and for political accountability if you would do so.

Prime Minister, you told Parliament last Wednesday: “…But I do think that in the case of the Bill on Section 59, the overwhelming majority of our Parliament has come together, not only to send a very strong message about not wanting the violence that causes death and injury in our homes but also to send a strong message of support to good, decent parents, who should not be marched off to court for matters that are so inconsequential it would not be in the public interest to have them there...”

If it is truly the “overwhelming majority” of our Parliament that has come together then you should have no difficulty accepting a free vote. The problem is if you don’t, it looks as if you and John Key are dictating how the majority of Parliament should vote. Not all of Parliament accepts this Bill just as much of the country does not. The only way to resolve it is to allow a free vote.

ACT is the only party which now opposes the Bill. We oppose it because it makes any mum or dad lightly smacking their toddler a criminal. That’s ridiculous. The Bill’s purpose makes this clear. It is to:

“Make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”

Clause 4 substitutes a new section 59(2) into the Crimes Act 1961 that drives the point home:

“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”

Once the Bill passes it will be against the law to smack a child and a parent lightly smacking their toddler will be committing a criminal offence as defined in the Crimes Act.

New subsection (4) which you have both agreed to doesn’t change this fact. That is why Sue Bradford has not withdrawn her bill as she said she would if it was watered down in any way.

All your joint amendment does is to confirm that the police have discretion as to whether they prosecute or not, discretion they have always had and have always exercised.

The fact remains that a parent smacking their child will be committing a crime, whether or not they are prosecuted. Good parents will be criminalised should this bill pass into law. It’s simply not right to criminalise parents in this way.

I once again ask you both to allow you respective caucus’ a free vote to test truly the will of Parliament.

Yours sincerely
Rodney Hide MP for Epsom
Leader, ACT New Zealand