Plunket and Section 59

information from www.plunket.org.nz

If Section 59 is repealled, will I become a criminal if I smack my child?
Plunket: "...The police will only take action when it goes too far."

Answer the question Plunket.  Will you be a criminal or not?  Police prosection has got nothing to do with it.  There are plenty of criminals out there (house-hold robbery for instance), who have not been caught, but are nonetheless criminals.

Plunket: "...Section 59's repeal is not about criminalising ordinary parents.  It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assult their children..."

Could you remind us again exactly how many times it's been used Plunket?  Maybe seven times - in the history of Section 59.

Plunket: "Children are number one - that's the only statistic worth recording"

Really?  Why is that?  If the child is number one, then are the parents number two and three?  No, the child is part of the family.  No rank needs to be assigned, thankyou.  Good parents are those who care enough to, at times, smack their children to reinforce the serious nature of the rule that has been broken.

Among the list of "things that children respond really well to", as incentives or reasons for doing what they are told, are the following:

- having a good example set for them
- communication about what is right and wrong
- consistent, authoritative discipline
- routine
- clear boundaries and expectations
- time out
- removal of privileges

How are things such as removal of privileges, routine and time-out to be enforced?  What if your child doesn't want his privileges removed?

What then?

If smacking is assult, then so is innoculation

Several times throughout the early years of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before a nurse, and have a sharp thing stabbed in his arm.  It hurts like anything, and the child cries.  The child's mother stands by, watching, and then comforts the child once the process is completed.

This is called innoculation.  The child will be unhappy about this.  The reason it is done, is because it will help the child in the long-run, making his immune system much stronger, and able to resist dangerous diseases that would otherwise kill him.

Several times (admittedly, a few more) throughout the early year's of a child's life, it is common practice for him to be brought before his father or mother, and experience the sting of a smack on his hand or his bottom.  It hurts, probably not quite as badly as the innoculation, and the child cries.  The child's parents comfort the child, and the ordeal is over.

This is called smacking.  The child will be unhappy about this.  However, the reason that it is done is that it will help the child in the long run.  It will part of the parenting process that will help to make his heart much stronger, able to resist dangerous situations that could otherwise kill him.

What is the difference?  Both processes involve pain on the child's heart, and empathy on the part of the parent.  One process is for the betterment of health, the other is for the discipline of the child.  If smacking is assult and violence, then so is innoculation.  And we can say that this is Government sanctioned abuse of children by way of violent assult.  This is the language that the repealists are using.

So Killing unborn children is fine, but smacking is not?

Green Party MP Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill is political correctness gone berserk.

It Is deplorable that the Government has refused Labour caucus members the democratic right to excercise a concience vote on this controversial and unnecessary bill. This is dictatorial and a threat to our democracy.

In supporting this bill, the Government continues to pursue it's social engineering, ignoring public opinion which is overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.

The Government says that it is opposed to violence against children. Violence against children begins in the womb. How can a government that supports this bill accept, sanction and fund the violent death of more than 17,000 defenceless unborn children in New Zealand each year?

The message the Government is giving to the community is that parents have a right to kill their children before birth, but after birth they may not smack them.

Ken Orr, Right to Life NZ - The Press, Letters to the Editor, February 22

"My bill will not stop those things happening" - Bradford

Green MP Sue Bradford, who has previously said she could never imagine hitting her five children (now adults), said the bill was about changing the culture in New Zealand. "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in the name of discipline. "My bill will not stop those things happening, but what it's trying to change is the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids." (www.stuff.co.nz)

Bradford's explanation of the legislation she wants to pass is fantastically incoherent. "My bill will not stop these things happening", she says. Well, the question is screaming at me, why even bother repealling it then, Sue? What is the point of "changing the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids", if "the bill will not stop this happening"?

Bradford states: "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in the name of discipline." Obviously, this "discipline" is disgusting, and not real discipline at all. Section59 as it stands will not let cases like this slip through. If Section59 is repealed, the bad parents will continue beating up their children, while the good parents will be criminalised for performing what they believe to be their duty in parenting.

We are not the pro-smacking lobby. We do not believe that a child must be hit to be good. None of us anti-repealists have ever said that "smacking is the only way". We do not enjoy the act of smacking/spanking. What we are, however, is a group of people concerned about the future of the family in New Zealand.

"Sue Bradford never smacked her children, but she yelled at them (Feb22). Smacking can hurt for a minute, but words can hurt for a lifetime" – Ross McKerras The Press, letters to the Editor, Feb24

What do we take from this? Psychological abuse is perfectly fine, but a smack on the hand, or bottom is not ok? Let's just yell at our kids, ok. When they do something wrong, what should we do? Take them to the bathroom and lovingly talking to them, explain what they've done wrong, make sure they understand, and then give them a smack or two, only to the hand or bottom. Or should we just blast them? Lose our temper and yell at them?

It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Leave it up to the parents as to how they will discipline their own children.

THE PRESS waves the red flag

Here are some excerpts from the article: "A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand" in The Press, Feb22

"Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age"
Says who? The approximately 80% of New Zealanders who have voted in various polls, saying that smacking is ok?

"Bradford's anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society."
What's this? Whereabouts to these "origins of violence" lie?

"Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual Mps to be targeted for supporting the measure".
What a cop out. A poor excuse for bull-dozing the opinions of the majority of Kiwis.

"The passing of the anti smacking bill through it's second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse."
What? This is one heck of a small step to be taking.

Simon Barnett: "smacking bill is home-invasion"

Christchurch radio personality and devoted father of four Simon Barnett is speaking out against the anti-smacking bill, which he describes as a "home invasion". Barnett, co-host of More FM breakfast show and sometime TV celebrity, says he is sick of misinformation about Sue Bradford's bill which he says will criminalise caring parents. The bill, removing a defence for parents against assault charges if they use reasonable force to discipline their children, is likely to come up for its third reading in Parliament this month. Most commentators predict it will pass.

Barnett told The Press yesterday that the bill meant parents could not smack or restrain their child for corrective purposes, or even forcibly send them to time-out. The police would be obliged to investigate any complaint, whether it came from a manipulative child, an angry neighbour, spurned lover or someone "who hates your guts", he said. Barnett and wife Jodi have four girls aged six to 13. He no longer smacks his older two girls, but says the others still occasionally need physical discipline as an immediate consequence for repeated bad behaviour. He gave the example of six-year-old Lily who kept getting out of bed one night this week. "I told her maybe eight times, 'Don't come out of bed again'. I said it and I said it and I said it."  After a final warning - "If Daddy has to come in there again, I'm going to smack you" - she continued getting up, standing up in bed, looking out the window." I smacked her, she cried and then I said, 'I love you so much. I'll see you tomorrow'. She was asleep in three minutes.

"I know that it works. It's quick, it's effective and it's minimum fuss." Barnett, who says he has read every parenting book, looked at every website and attended several parenting courses, said even though the bill's supporters say police will not enforce the law when parents smack their children for discipline: "I want to parent within the law." He said it would not help teach his children a respect for the law otherwise, as children hated any hint of hypocrisy. He acknowledged New Zealand's "massive" problem with child abuse. "I'm the first to be alarmed. But most sane, normal parents know there's a huge difference between abuse and assault and a smack for corrective purposes."

The law change would do nothing for those children affected in the most horrific cases, such as James Whakaruru, Lillybing, Chris and Cru Kahui, he said. "Those are broken, broken people. Poverty, family breakdown." Barnett, who attends Grace Vineyard Church, said his convictions did not come from a Christian "spare the rod and spoil the child" stance. "I've been a parent for far longer than I've been a Christian. To me it's nothing to do with that. "I don't want (the bill) to pass because I fear for my children's future, that there will be no boundaries." Green MP Sue Bradford, who has previously said she could never imagine hitting her five children (now adults), said the bill was about changing the culture in New Zealand. "In many, many cases where children are badly injured or killed, it's in
the name of discipline. "My bill will not stop those things happening, but what it's trying to change is the point of view that it's OK to hit your kids."

By JOANNA DAVIS - The Press | Saturday, 10 March 2007

"discipline was the best thing that ever happened to me" - Timaru boy

"...A 30-second sting on the bum has cost my son three years of life with his family. And I'm still fighting for custody of my son. It hasn't mattered that I was found not guilty..."

For the full article, - Fearful of Bradford's bill, click here

This is the riding crop and cane used in the ``horse whip'' case. It has been supplied by the woman who used them as she believes people have the wrong idea of what was involved.

A warning was issued yesterday that families will be ruined under Green MP Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill. Rachael Comer reports.

A former Timaru woman at the centre of the infamous "horse whip case" says she is fearful of Sue Bradford's bill.

The woman, whose name is suppressed to protect the identity of the child involved, fears that other parents will encounter the same destruction she, and her family, have endured, should the bill become law.

In 2005 a jury in the Timaru District Court acquitted the woman of assaulting her 13-year-old son with a bamboo cane and a riding crop. However, further unrelated assault charges have been laid against the woman, and her partner, and they will appear in the Timaru District
Court on April 12.

Despite being found not guilty the woman says, since the court case, Child, Youth and Family have treated her as guilty.

"A 30-second sting on the bum has cost my son three years of life with his family.

"And I'm still fighting for custody of my son. It hasn't mattered that I was found not guilty."

She claims the incident was "totally controlled. The anti-smacking bill is opening up for a lot of trouble."

"It's entirely destructive and that's what will happen to average families. They will be ruined." Under the law parents would not be allowed to discipline their childrenby way of correction, she said.

"There's a difference between discipline and beating. Look what happens now, disciplining has been taken out of schools."

The woman claims she used every form of non-physical discipline on her son and he hadn't responded.

"I really love my boy and I didn't have a choice. I've been painted as being violent even when I'm not."

She denies being reported as saying the Bible justified her actions. "It being for religious reasons was a load of bull" [she said].

"They've been painting me as some sort of religious nutter which couldn't be further from the truth."

"But he says the discipline was the best thing that ever happened to him."

The bill recently passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51.

The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 10 March 2007

Calling Good Evil

Friday, 9 March 2007, 1:58 pm - Press Release: Family Integrity

"I converted to Christianity at age 23, some 33 years ago, from a life of hedonism. I understand the terms "debauchery" and "licentiousness" and how destructive they are.

But this Government has tried to remove the social stigma attached to the irresponsible lifestyles of debauchery and licentiousness by enhancing the legal status of homosexuals and de factoes, fully legalising prostitution, allowing younger people freer access to alcohol, refusing to replace the unrepresentative and thoroughly desensitised film censors, pushing condom use in schools, allowing party drug use to grow, fostering an abortion-on-demand environment and ensuring contraceptive and abortion supply are the only medical areas
where children don't need parental knowledge or consent. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil," says Isaiah 5:20.

Being personally convinced of the Bible's definitions of what constitutes good and evil, like thousands of other New Zealand parents, I am unafraid to shoulder my responsibilities toward my children and toward society by using reasonable force, including smacking, to correct my children's expressions of evil, anti-social behaviour. Woe to me if I don't. This is a social good the Government is trying to claim is an evil by repealing Section 59.

Why is this Government being so irrational, anti-family and anti-Christian, that it will gladly commit untold damage to good families via Police investigations and untold abuse and trauma to children via CYFS intervention?"

Rodney Hide on Section59

http://andrewfalloon.blogspot.com/2007/03/forward-thinking-being-smart-
green.html
"Thinking- Being "Smart Green" - Andrew Falloon

"...High Performance Government also means passing smart laws that are enforceable and enforced, not meaningless 'feel good' laws which can only be applied arbitrarily. That's why it's wrong to criminalise parents who smack their children. It's fine that parents can choose not to smack their kids. That's their choice and their right. But it's wrong for politicians to tell responsible parents who smack their kids that they can't, that they are breaking the law, and that they are tantamount to child abusers. It's stupid stuff.

Plenty of caring, loving, responsible parents smack their children. I know. I was one of them.
Abolishing Section 59 won't stop child abuse...."

The Bill Really Is Insane

Craig Smith - 6 March 07

At last an MP has come out and said what the vast majority of New
Zealand's population has been saying for over a year: that Bradford's
home invasion Bill is insane. (See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00071.htm)

All thanks and congratulations must go to United Future MP Gordon
Copeland. He has pointed out that Sir Geoffrey Palmer's report of the
Law Commission, upon which the Justice and Electoral Committee leaned to
compose the current form of Bradford's anti-parent Bill before
Parliament, states that the Bill disallows parents from using any force
at all for either corrective or disciplinary purposes. This bans a great
deal more than just smacking: enforcing a time out to "think over what
you've done", forcing children to apologise for an insult or repay
stolen money or simply to do as they were asked will all become crimes
of criminal assault worth as much as two years in jail because they seek
to correct children's bad behaviour into good and proper behaviour. How
could any sane adult seriously contemplate enacting such absurd,
destructive legislation?

And the report also points out that Section 3 of the Bill disallows
correction to even be part of an action's mixed motives. That is, the
Bill endeavours to force parents to be pure even in thought. Bradford
would legislate that parents' very hearts and minds must not be soiled
with what she would see as the illegal corruption of corrective or
disciplinary motives.

As Mr Copeland say, this is just plain nuts, absurd, insane.

Bradford gave us plenty of clues right from the start that her Bill was
crazy: the Bill's original title was a nonsense; she openly stated she
wanted to see parents reduced to the same level as everyone else so far
as the use of force with their own children is concerned. This would
completely erase the fact that children, being both dependent and
immature in mental and physical development, need some responsible
adults, parents being the obvious ones, to take charge of their lives
and force them along the path of character and behaviour development
children do not travel if left to themselves. And her insistence that
there be no appeal to our 800 years of common law wisdom and precedent
clearly shows a lemming-like desire to jump off the edge into the great
unknown of social experimentation.

May the rest of Parliament comes to its senses and vote Bradford's
subversive Bill into oblivion where it belongs.

3 SWEDISH CASES (in detail)

Teacher case - (B 2637/92 Gothenburg District Court)

In September 1992 a teacher was convicted and fined for having maltreated his 12 year-old son. The parents - both intellectuals - had made certain rules as regards the tidying of the children's rooms and watching the TV. The children were not allowed to watch TV all evening, and their TV-time was restricted to 2 hours per evening including playing computer games.

On April 9, the father told his son to turn off the tv and empty the garbage. The boy refused to comply, so his father turned off the tv, removed the boy bodily from the sofa, put the garbage bag in his hand and shoved him towards the door. The boy cried and the following day he went to the police and reported being beaten and kicked - that he had been maltreated by his father.

The boy informed his father that he had reported him to the police, and the father explained what the consequences could be. The boy rushed off to the police station to withdraw his statement but instead, that resulted in the father also being charged for "interfering in due process".

The Pre-school teacher case - (B 5050/92 Gothenburg District Court)

A young Finnish pre-school teacher was accused of maltreating her 12 year old daughter who always kept on stealing and running away from home. The mother and daughter have been living in Sweden for 6 years and the child was emotionally disturbed because of alleged sexual abuse from her father (the parents divorced before mother and daughter moved to Sweden).

Once when the girl had run away from home she was taken care of by the police and the social authorities in Falk?ping. The girl then said that she was afraid to return home because her mother would be angry with her for having run off once again, that her mother would perhaps smack her.

The policeman then advised the girl of her rights according to the law, and that her mother was not allowed to even lay a finger on her - only talk to her. She was also encouraged to go to the police and report her mother if ever she should lay hands on her.

A few weeks later, the girl ran off once again and when she finally returned home late that night she was very provocative. Her mother became angry and physically punished her. The girl went to the police the next morning and filed charges against her mother.

The mother was found guilty of maltreatment.

The H?lsingborg Case - (Order of summary punishment (Straff?rel?ggande) 1252-882-84)

H?lsingborgs District Attorney issued an order of summary punishment on May 23, 1984 against a Swedish father for physically punishing his 12 year old.

The boy's friends used to call the family's telephone so often that the parents decided to get a secret number. The boy was told not to give the number to his friends. On April 27, 1984, when a call came for the boy, his father accused him of having given the new telephone number to his friends.

When the boy denied doing this, his father accused him of lying and physically punished him. His mother saw what had happened and instructed the boy to report his father to the police. The family then sat down to dinner and an hour later the boy went to the police and reported his father.

The mother was interrogated by the police on May 14, 1984. The police asked her if she had been aware of the consequences of a report to the police. She replied: "I wasn't, but I thought that the police would talk to Dad, and give him a warning so that he wouldn't do it again. If we had known that it would go as far as this, we would never have reported the incident. It would have remained within the family."

the ?'s are due to the translation of Swedish into English.

Bradford ‘Anti-smacking’ Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

MEDIA RELEASE 5 MARCH 2007

Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they don’t like parental discipline and correction.

Prominent QC Peter McKenzie, in his opinion released last week, highlights this when he says “complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges.”

“And this is consistent with international experience,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Supt Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London and Britain’s most senior black policeman said at the weekend(1) that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge. He said that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption. He made these comments during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men.

In Sweden (where smacking was banned in 1979), the Nordic Committee for Human Rights says(2) “Children have been informed of their rights and so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents in the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police…When the children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but they are held to their stories - without any consideration of the damages that the children themselves incur.”

“The resentment that the parents feel towards their children whose unacceptable behaviour was the direct cause of the charges against the parents, has resulted in the loss of normal, loving parental guidance for these children. The guilt felt by the children has also seriously damaged the parent/child relationship.” (cases in detail below)

Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass Sue Bradford’s bill, it will only increase the likelihood of disgruntled children making complaints against their parents because of resentment against correction, ‘time out’, or denial of privileges.

“This will pit children against their parents, and will place parents under extreme pressure,” says Mr McCoskrie. “This would be a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. It is already happening in NZ, with the recent example of a teenager effectively ‘divorcing’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules.”

In an attempt to protect children from the small minority of parents who are obviously unsuitable to hold the responsibilities of parenting, we are steam-rolling good parents who deserve the backing of the state – not undermining and potentially criminalising.

Mr McCoskrie says that a child’s rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture, protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been shifted from simply protecting vulnerable children to granting them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.

ENDS

(1) A smack can keep children from crime says police leader – Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 07 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml

(2) http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm

7 More Good Reasons Why We Oppose the Anti-Smacking Bill

Wednesday, 21 February 2007, 4:40 pm
Press Release: Family First Lobby.

1. No decent research shows smack by a loving parent breeds violence
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 achievement than those who were not smacked at all.
Fergusson and Lynskey (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”

2. UNICEF reports prove there is no link between smacking and child abuse
2003 UNICEF report on maltreatment deaths.
Of the five countries with the lowest child abuse death rates in the UNICEF report, four allow smacking !
Austria banned smacking in 1989 – is the 5th highest for child abuse death rates

2007 Report released last week : “the likelihood of a child being injured or killed is associated with poverty, single-parenthood, low maternal education, low maternal age at birth, poor housing, weak family ties, and parental drug or alcohol abuse.”
The safest country for children is Netherlands – hasn’t banned smacking . Of the 10 top countries, 6 haven’t banned smacking.

The 2006 CYF report “Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention”
identified the factors which signaled greater risk for children including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and family breakdown. Statistics also showed that children living in households with an adult unrelated to them were almost 50 times as likely to die of an inflicted injury as those living with two biological parents!

Example: Just one of the real causes - Substance Abuse
UNICEF report 2003 - Child welfare professionals – 80% said “substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment”
85% of States in US report substance abuse and poverty leading problems in families reported for abuse
Substance abuse triples risk for child maltreatment
ADVERTISEMENT

3. Sweden experience is a warning to us
Child abuse increased 489% in 13 years following ban - Assaults by kids against kids increased 672%
2000 Swedish Govt report – “we see no tendency to a decrease in bullying at school or in leisure time during the last 20 years”
Sweden’s Foster Care rate is double NZ’s – twice as many kids being removed from their families
European Crime and Safety Safety – UN, Euro Commission – published this month - Sweden has one of the worst assault and sexual violence rates in EU

Lies.....
Around one child a month dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver in New Zealand. In Sweden, the average annual deaths attributable to child abuse for the past 30 years or so has been less than one every four years. - Document circulated on behalf of Barnadoes, Plunket, Save the Children, Children’s Commissioner and EPOCH last year
“ The rate of child homicide & in Sweden is something like one every 4 years” - Sue Bradford on TVNZ’s Close Up 19 July 2006
• “Dr Kiro says people need to realise since Sweden banned physical punishment in 1976, only four children died in the following 20 years”
Children’s Commissioner speaks out against culture of violence – Press Release - Dr Cindy Kiro - 03/11/2004

The Truth
Morgan Johansson, Swedish public health minister, said (2006)
" Every year, eight to ten, sometimes as many as twelve children die in Sweden due to violence. This has been true for several years,"

4. Polls
Averaged out, polls show that 80% of us want to keep the status quo. Politicians need to listen to the people.

5. “Police won’t prosecute” – Yeah Right
Domestic Violence Policy currently being enforced by Police strongly encourages arrest at the time and denies Police Diversion except where authorised by the District Commander. Diversions are rarely given for domestic violence matters. The Police Association admitted today (21 Feb) that they will have to investigate any complaint.

As noted by Cabinet, anyone may bring a prosecution for breach of criminal law e.g. lobby group could bring private prosecution against smack or removal to ‘time out’ – not determined by Police

6. Are the Greens serious about stopping child abuse?
2003: P (Methamphetamine) reclassified as a Class A drug – only the Greens opposed
2006: Opposed an increase to the Drinking Age
2005: Intentional Possession of Child Pornography (the worst of child abuse) –Only the Greens opposed the maximum penalty being 5 years – wanted it lower at 2 years
2007: Want to decriminalise Marijuana
SOFT ON THE REAL CAUSES OF CHILD ABUSE YET THEY WANT TO CRIMINALISE PARENTS WHO GIVE THEIR KIDS A SMACK

7. Smacking isn’t violence – it’s correction
Children are already protected from violence and assault through the Crimes Act
Smacking is in harmony with nature – pain teaches e.g a child teases a dog, they get a dog bite – a child touches the hot element, they get burnt – they take their hands off the handles of the bike – they crash!
Does this teach a child to be a violent person? NO!
A Reasonable smack from loving parent is great teaching tool