Comments on: Correspondence with Kiro’s Office http://menz.org.nz/2008/correspondence-with-kiros-office/ - promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience - Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:00:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Hans Laven http://menz.org.nz/2008/correspondence-with-kiros-office/#comment-146205 Hans Laven Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:06:11 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/2008/correspondence-with-kiros-office/#comment-146205 Remember also that the law now provides no right for parents to use force in disciplining children. There is a direction for police not to prosecute some of these offences based on vague criteria of seriousness and public relevance, but any acts of force in disciplining children are still illegal regardless of whether police choose to prosecute in any particular case. The intent of the Bradford amendment was to make the use of disciplinary force no more acceptable when directed at children than if used on, say, a neighbour or any other adult. The only people now legally entitled to use force in the process of disciplining children are agents of the state such as police, Court officials, prison officers, army. The meanings of "force" has yet to be clarified through case law. However, clearly it will refer to physical force. Therefore, manually forcing a child to go into a time-out room is now illegal. Holding the door of the time out room shut or otherwise making a child stay in the room is also clearly force and something that it would not be legal to do to your neighbour. It would be reasonable to say also that preventing a child from watching tv, from going out to a party or from receiving this week's pocket money also involves force of an emotional/psychological nature and is probably also illegal now. At the present time police may well not prosecute for this range of illegal methods of force, but under their vague criteria that could and will change over time. There will come a time when testing a parent's right to force a child into a time out room will be seen as important to the public interest. The current, astounding trend to give children equal rights to adults will logically move to include all methods of parental force in disciplinary procedures. The logical result will be that only agents of the state will have the right to use any methods of discipline against children, whereupon state ownership of children will be much closer to absolute. Remember also that the law now provides no right for parents to use force in disciplining children. There is a direction for police not to prosecute some of these offences based on vague criteria of seriousness and public relevance, but any acts of force in disciplining children are still illegal regardless of whether police choose to prosecute in any particular case. The intent of the Bradford amendment was to make the use of disciplinary force no more acceptable when directed at children than if used on, say, a neighbour or any other adult. The only people now legally entitled to use force in the process of disciplining children are agents of the state such as police, Court officials, prison officers, army.

The meanings of “force” has yet to be clarified through case law. However, clearly it will refer to physical force. Therefore, manually forcing a child to go into a time-out room is now illegal. Holding the door of the time out room shut or otherwise making a child stay in the room is also clearly force and something that it would not be legal to do to your neighbour. It would be reasonable to say also that preventing a child from watching tv, from going out to a party or from receiving this week’s pocket money also involves force of an emotional/psychological nature and is probably also illegal now.

At the present time police may well not prosecute for this range of illegal methods of force, but under their vague criteria that could and will change over time. There will come a time when testing a parent’s right to force a child into a time out room will be seen as important to the public interest. The current, astounding trend to give children equal rights to adults will logically move to include all methods of parental force in disciplinary procedures. The logical result will be that only agents of the state will have the right to use any methods of discipline against children, whereupon state ownership of children will be much closer to absolute.

]]> By: Scrap_The_CSA http://menz.org.nz/2008/correspondence-with-kiros-office/#comment-145300 Scrap_The_CSA Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:40:30 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/2008/correspondence-with-kiros-office/#comment-145300 Obviously Ms Kiro has no supporting research to substaniate her false claim. Why am I not surprised that this official is telling porkies? Because she states claims that have no quantifiable basis! Sheryn Elborn-Child Rights Advisor is another official who tells porkies. Her job as an official is supposed to be promoting evidence based policy but thats not what she is doing she is advocating an ideological approach that is focused on furthering the UNROC requirement that the State owns children. Me Elborn cannot produce the evidence to support her claim as Hans shows. Well written Hans. Regards Scrap Obviously Ms Kiro has no supporting research to substaniate her false claim.

Why am I not surprised that this official is telling porkies? Because she states claims that have no quantifiable basis!

Sheryn Elborn-Child Rights Advisor is another official who tells porkies.

Her job as an official is supposed to be promoting evidence based policy but thats not what she is doing she is advocating an ideological approach that is focused on furthering the UNROC requirement that the State owns children.

Me Elborn cannot produce the evidence to support her claim as Hans shows.

Well written Hans.

Regards

Scrap

]]>