Grant Illingworth QC…“an unmitigated piece of nonsense”.

from www.kiwiblog.co.nz - a comment by dad4justice | March 14, 2007 3:54 PM

The following is a collection of comments about the proposed repeal of s59 from those with 'questionable sanity & agendas', those who ignored, those who tried and those who lied.Where is my nurofen, as my head hurts as I am dreading watching the utopian freaks on the TV News kissing each other when the appalling bill passes .

Sue Bradford, Speech (October 2006)… "Personally I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out by consenting adults using safe sex practices - what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practiced on children and young people under a mantle of so called discipline…section 59 of the Crimes Act, has been protecting the perpetrators of a vicious mix of sexual and physical abuse for generations".

Grant Illingworth QC…"an unmitigated piece of nonsense".

Simon Maude, Chair of the Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society…"appears to be a prescription that widens rather than narrows what is permissible and certainly does nothing to create certainty".

Stuart Grieve QC…"I agree with your analysis that the amended section does not prohibit parents from smacking at all".

Bob McCoskrie, Family First NZ..."banning smacking is a failure to deal with the real causes of child abuse" and "Sue Bradford should not threaten to run roughshod across this democratic process, which she initiated".

Pacific Island leaders…"will do more harm than good to Pacific Island parents and families".

Eroni Clarke (ex All Black)…"I oppose this bill because I want to be a parent that loving raises my children and if it means to use corrective smacking, I want to do it without the possibility of breaking the law".

Linda Vagana (ex Silver Fern)…"it's going to effect Pacifica families, especially parents who are doing a good job".

Rev. Tavake Tupou (Tongan church leader)…"parents should retain the right to discipline their children to ensure they have the best possible future".

Litea Ah Hoi (Porirua Councillor, Samoan)…"repealing s59 will not stop the small percentage of people, parents, guardians who proceed to use violent physical abuse and the killing of our children".

Olinda Woodriffe (Lawyer, Samoan)…"to me this bill criminalize innocent parents who occasionally exercise a little slap to keep the child in line".

Tony Fuemana (musician, Niuean)… "the proposed law change will punish parents who are doing a good job of raising their kids, but will have no effect on the actions of actual child abusers who have little regard for the law anyway".

Young Labour (Labour Party youth wing)…in a poll on the Young Labour website 80.7% oppose Bradford's Bill.

Peter McKenzie QC…"complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges".

Phil Goff (Cabinet Minister)… acknowledged that under the current family violence policy of the police, they were already obliged to investigate suspected or reported assaults.

Otago University Study 2006…Children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievements than those who were not smacked at all.

Fergussen and Lynsky (Christchurch School of Medicine)… found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment… "it is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences".

The Voice of New Zealand, over 12 polls between June 2005 and March 2007, 83.33% of the public (by average) rejected Bradford's bill to repeal s59. (lowest poll 71%, NZ Herald July 2005; Highest poll 90%, NZ Herald March 2007). In a democracy, the Bill would have been dismissed long ago.