Fielding Protest Rally 23 April

Diane Woodward is organising the third rally in Feilding to protest
against the passage of Bradford's Bill to re-write Section 59.

The aim of this rally is to draw attention to the meeting between National's John Key
and Green's Sue Bradford proposed for ANZAC Day, Wednesday 25 April

Where: Feilding Clock Tower
When: 12 Noon Monday 23 April (two days before ANZAC Day)

Be there.

Smacked kids hurt animals says MP

from www.stuff.co.nz
The Dominion Post | Friday, 20 April 2007

Key Labour ally Jim Anderton says men who were smacked as children are far more likely to abuse animals.

In a speech to the SPCA, the Progressives leader - who is in coalition with Labour - cited a United States Justice Department report in 1999 that said nearly 60 per cent of men who admitted mistreating animals had suffered corporal punishment from their fathers.

About a quarter said they had abused animals, but had not been physically punished as children. Corporal punishment was defined in the survey as "spanking, slapping or hitting".

Mr Anderton supports Green MP Sue Bradford's bill, which removes the statutory "reasonable force" defence for parents who smack their children for the purposes of correction. Polls show more than 80 per cent of voters are against a change to the law.

Mr Anderton said the study showed that people "emotionally damaged through violence" were more likely to be violent or have no empathy for others.

His reference to the US research was dismissed as a desperate measure by National MP Chester Borrows, who has drafted an amendment to the bill that would allow light smacking. Mr Borrows said yesterday that the research Mr Anderton used - which was based on interviews with 84 university undergraduates - was demographically flawed and inferior to other studies that showed no effects from smacking. The research "wasn't anywhere near as clear-cut as he says it was".

Mr Borrows said research from the groundbreaking New Zealand longitudinal study, which has tracked participants since birth for more than 30 years and covered a range of backgrounds, painted a much different picture .

"What you find is that children who are raised in a loving, nurturing home and who are lightly smacked are indistinguishable from those who weren't smacked." ...

Accept anti-smacking bill is flawed says Key

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Wednesday, 18 April 2007, 3:06 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party

National Party Leader John Key says backers of the anti-smacking bill need to accept that the way the bill is currently drafted will make it illegal to use light smacking for the purposes of correction.

"I will not support a bill that leaves otherwise good parents at the mercy of the police and the judiciary.

"The Greens and Labour now have an opportunity to get closer to the public they serve, by agreeing they've got a major problem with the current wording."

Mr Key says his offer to get around the table with Sue Bradford and Helen Clark remains open.

"But there's no point in proceeding unless Sue Bradford and Helen Clark will accept that light smacking for the purposes of correction will be illegal under their proposals.

"That is the first step towards finding some common ground."

Mr Key has laid down a counter-challenge for Labour to explain how it is that the bill in its current form won't criminalise parents.

"If Labour really believes that 'light smacking for the purposes of correction' will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to 'lightly smack for the purposes of correction'.

"The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite.

"So again I say to Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, if you are genuine in your statements, and genuine in your intentions, then let's get around the table and come up with a set of words we all agree on.

"For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table."

World Expert on Child Correction Coming to NZ

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 3:05 pm

Family First NZ, with the support of For the Sake of Our Children Trust and Sensible Sentencing Trust, is bringing to New Zealand ROBERT E. LARZELERE PhD, Associate Professor of the Psychology Dept. Human Development & Family Science at Oklahoma State University to present the dangers of the 'Anti-Smacking' Bill on the important role of parents and the well-being of our children.

Dr Larzelere will be in NZ the week of the next vote on the Bradford / Clark 'Anti-Smacking' Bill (May 2nd). This is an important vote because the sensible amendment of MP Chester Borrow's (which substantially lowers the definition of what is 'reasonable' without criminalising good parents who give light smacks) will be voted on.

Dr Larzelere has been one of the world's foremost experts on the research on child correction outcomes for the past 30 years - including: One of three social scientific expert witnesses on the side of successfully defending a similar section to NZ's s59 of Canada's Criminal Code. (The social scientific expert witnesses on the other side included Joan Durrant. Durrant has been painted as the authority on smacking bans in NZ yet was ignored in her own country!) . Member of Task Force on Corporal Punishment - American Psychological Association. . One of 7 experts invited to present at 1996 Scientific Consensus Conference on the Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment - co-sponsored by American Academy of Pediatrics .

His expertise will help answer the following questions regarding the Anti-Smacking Parental Correction debate:

1. what is the sound scientific evidence on the benefits / harms of smacking?

2. how does appropriate smacking compare with other forms of parental correction in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes?

3. do smacking bans reduce child abuse according to international experience?

You can find out more about Dr. Larzelere and his visit to New Zealand by clicking here

CIR Petition past half way

from http://www.scoop.co.nz
Monday, 16 April 2007, 4:27 pm
Press Release: Larry Baldock and Sheryl Savill

CIR Petition coordinator Larry Baldock announced today that the petition
to force a referendum on the Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Bill had
passed the halfway point towards the required target of 300,000
signatures.

As of today, 150,745 signatures had been received on Sheryl Savill's
Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question, "should a smack as part
of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

The law allows twelve months to collect the required 300,000 signatures.

"To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this
the fastest petition gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act,
and needless to say all of us involved are very encouraged by the
support we have received from all over the country," he said.

"While the supporters of Sue Bradord's HOME INVASION, ANTI CORRECTION,
ANTI-SMACKING Bill continue to argue about the accuracy of all the polls
that have been conducted that show an overwhelming majority of
opposition to her bill, we can confidently say we are going to be able
to require a referendum to be held at the next election. There will be
no disputing that result and politicians would be unwise to continue to
ignore the voice of those who elected them into parliament," said Mr
Baldock.

Muriel Newman on S59

from www.murielnewman.co.nz

New Zealand is being conned over the so-called anti-smacking bill.

Touted as being the way to prevent child abuse, this bill is part of an international movement designed to undermine parental authority and increase state control over children. While a dozen or so countries have succumbed to the pressure of the anti-smacking lobby and the United Nations, the overwhelming majority have not (see "Smacking Laws in other Countries" BBC News Online>>>).

The promoters of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill want to remove section 59 of the Crimes Act, so that parents who discipline their children using "reasonable" force will no longer be protected from the charge of assault. They claim this is necessary because section 59 is being used as a shield to protect child abusers. Yet since 1990 there have only been seven successful defenses using section 59!

The public can recognize a con job when they see one. That is why they are fighting back with email campaigns, newspaper advertisements, marches, meetings, petitions and debates. It is this organised opposition that is threatening Labour to such an extent that they are now plotting to undermine the democratic process by calling the House into urgency. If they succeed, the bill will be fast-tracked through Parliament with the rest of the committee stages and the final third reading all held this week.

At the centre of the controversy over the bill is the Prime Minister. She reassured the country before the last election that she would not support a smacking ban: "As you know I do not support a ban on smacking. I am opposed to that because I think it defies human nature. No one wants to see a stressed and harassed parent who in exasperation lightly smacks a child dragged before the court." (see >>> )

The Minister of Justice at the time, Phil Goff agreed saying that while he supported the bill going to a select committee, he did not want to make criminals out of parents (click here to read the Herald article >>>).

When the bill was first introduced into Parliament, Labour MPs were asked to support it to a select committee on the understanding they would be given a conscience vote for the subsequent stages. However, when Philip Field resigned and Labour needed the Green Party's support to stay in power, all of that changed and the Prime Minister now expects all Labour MPs to vote with the party.

But in a Parliamentary democracy they don't have to do that. MPs have sovereign rights and history is rich with stories of brave MPs who cross the floor over important matters putting the best interests of their constituents and the country ahead of party politics.

When the anti-smacking debate started, the government funded a Canadian anti-smacking advocate Dr Joan Durrant to visit New Zealand to promote her controversial view that Sweden's smacking ban – introduced in 1979 - had reduced child abuse to "virtually zero". It is a view that had been discredited a few years ago by other researchers (see Herald >>>)...

Read the rest of the article here

Ruby Harrold-Claesson on S59: MUST READ

read the full article on www.murielnewman.co.nz
24 March 07

In the Dominion Post article (14/3) "Police prepare rules to act on smacks" the New Zealand public is informed that police chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with complaints about smacking as the bill outlawing the use of physical punishment as the final vote draws nearer. The Gisborne Herald article (17/3) "New bill 'unlikely' to drastically lift police workload" is based on a quotation from Police Minister Annette King. The Police Minister's views are quite irrelevant because the police, prosecutors and the criminal justice system are obliged to enforce the letter of the law. Thinking New Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would lead to policing and criminalising responsible parents. Being a lawyer in Sweden under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that all along, and I am still trying to warn New Zealand before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the abolition of parental authority. That is exactly what the Editor of the Swedish newspaper The Day, (Dagen) wrote in his editorial "An unnecessary law" on November 11, 1978. (click to view >>>)

In Sweden the supporters of the Bill - the law was passed by 344 of 350 votes "to protect children from abuse" - claimed that no parent would be prosecuted under the anti-smacking law because it was promulgated in the Parents and guardianship Code. However, When I state in lectures, debates or public talks, etc., that the anti-smacking law is invoked to support the criminal charges against the parents and that the law has made parents afraid of their children, that the children intimidate their parents by threatening to report them to the police and the social services, etc., my opponents say that I am scaremongering or that I don't know what I am talking about. However, my statement is confirmed in the article "European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare rod -- or go to court", published in 2000. Well, there you have it. (See >>>)

In a government-funded speech in February 2006, Joan Durrant, claimed that Sweden 's smacking ban has reduced child abuse to "virtually zero". (See >>>) . The ideological advocates, led by Sue Bradford, claim that a smacking ban will reduce child abuse in New Zealand . However, Dr. Chris Beckett's  paper (2005), that bears the title: 'The Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death Statistics', shows that it did not reduce child abuse nor child homicides. It is just a myth. (See >>>).

...Prosecuting parents for physically forcing or punishing their children when words and admonitions prove to be insufficient is in no way in the best interest of children - neither in Sweden nor in New Zealand . It is, and must remain, the parents' duty and right to educate and socialise their children within the context of their family.

Who has the right to decide what is right? The politicians or the parents who know and love their children and want what is best for them? Sweden 's politicians decided what was right and best for the children of Sweden , and the parents were forced to abdicate or be dragged through the criminal and administrative court systems. Today both parents and children suffer at the hands of the social bureaucracy with the right to separate children from their "abusive" parents and put them in foster homes. However, separating children from their parents constitutes the greatest abuse - both physical and emotional - that can be inflicted on children and their families.

...I am convinced that New Zealand has enough intelligent, level-headed politicians so they will not want their fellow citizens to have to make the same mistakes that Sweden has made. Bradford 's Bill is not being progressive; it is being destructive and repressive. The French reporter, Jean-Francis Held, wrote the article "Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!"  (see >>>)

... By the way, if the New Zealand MP's want to follow Sweden 's example, then I can inform you that we had a change of government in October 2006.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson,
Attorney-at-Law,
president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights
Gothenburg, Sweden.

150,000 signatures on smacking referendum petition

this from www.stuff.co.nz
NZPA | Monday, 16 April 2007

A petition for a referendum on proposals to change the law around smacking has reached the half-way mark.

Sheryl Savill's Citizens Initiated Referendum petition asks if smacking a child as part of good parental correction should be made a criminal offence.

Petition coordinator former United Future MP Larry Baldock said 150,745 people of the required 300,000 needed to force a referendum had signed.

Green Party MP Sue Bradford has a bill before Parliament which changes the Crimes Act and removes the statutory defence of "reasonable force" against assault on a child.

Opponents say it will turn parents into criminals if they even lightly smack their children.

Ms Bradford and her supporters argue that smacking has been illegal for more than 100 years, and removing the defence means people will not get away with savagely beating children.

Petitioners have one year from when they start to gather signatures.

"To have arrived at the halfway mark after only six weeks must make this the fastest petition-gathering exercise in the history of the CIR Act, and, needless to say, all of us involved are very encouraged by the support we have received from all over the country," Mr Baldock said.

Think Again: Family Violence

from Maxim Insitute
John Fox - 5 April 07
Printed in Joy Magazine, April 2007

The campaign against 59 of the Crimes Act, otherwise known as the "anti-smacking Bill", arouses strong feelings. Those who support the Bill draw attention to New Zealand's violent culture, and our damningly high rates of child abuse. It is natural to feel that something ought to be done, even if it is just a gesture; a step in the right direction to prevent tragedies like the Kahui twins occurring and to tackle our culture of violence. We should, we must, do that. But this Bill will not achieve it.

Ms Bradford and the Prime Minister chime together that the Police will use their discretion and leave good parents and families alone, however, the Bill will still put good loving parents on the wrong side of the law and leave them open to investigations and prosecution. In the process it will undermine parents' authority over their children.

Child abuse is already illegal. We have laws which punish family violence already. This Bill would criminalise "reasonable" corrective force such as the light smacking used by thousands of Kiwi parents as a disciplinary technique. The best research available, Dr Jane Millichamp's, suggests that such light smacking (differentiated from beating, or hitting, or child abuse, which is illegal), is not harmful to children, and most Kiwi parents would agree.

The common argument the supporters of the Bill are mustering, is that the Bill will "send a message" that violence against children is unacceptable. But that message is already sent by laws against abuse.

If criminal law "sends a message", it is about the kind of behaviour we as a society find wrong, unacceptable, and criminal. Things like murder, rape, and child abuse come into that category. By passing the Bill, we would be putting light smacking into the same category, something to be prosecuted in a Court.

Our politicians are right to be concerned about family violence, but they should not be passing a law that they do not want the Police to enforce simply to "send a message". There are speeches and soap-boxes and press releases and TV cameras for that. Law is for crime, and for behaviour that is harmful and criminal and should be prosecuted.

Further, the Bill would do nothing to address the root causes of child abuse and family violence. UNICEF has said what some of the risk factors for abuse are: family breakdown, alcohol, drugs, poverty, low education and so on. The Bill does not tackle these risk factors for family violence.

The State and the Police should certainly intervene when there is crime or severe dysfunction, domestic violence and child abuse. There are decisions under the current law that we don't all agree with, and they show the need to improve and tighten the situations where parents can use discipline, but banning all reasonable correction goes too far and good parents should be left alone.

We are all attracted by a vision of the kind of society we can be; a country without violence, where children are safe. But after we have all agreed on the destination, it comes time to chart the path to take us there. Our MPs could have begun a deeper look at why our society is violent, why families and lives are broken, and the risk factors for family violence. Instead, they are choosing to make thousands of parents into criminals and license interference in good families. That is a wrong turn, the wrong path, and the wrong way.