MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sue Bradford Steeling Children

Filed under: General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 8:16 am Wed 24th May 2006

Here comes Sue Bradford again with her bid to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. While she now concedes there will have to be changes to her bill, one can only ask why then would we not change the current legislation rather than repeal it. Her bill does not contain the words mother and father, as the current legislation does.

59.Domestic discipline–

Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

And you say, but I didn’t see mother and father there either.

If there can be a person in place of a parent, then what is a parent?

The answer is a mother and a father.

Loose section 59 and you will empower the state parent of the Family Court. This state wants legal ownership of our sons and daughters.

Extract from the above stuff link:

The bill passed its first reading before the election with the help of Labour, but its continued support is not guaranteed. Whip Darren Hughes said a decision on further support would be made after the committee reported, though Labour agreed some reform was required.No surprise that Sue Bradford’s private members bill coincides with the Government’s agreement with the United Nations to repeal this law during 2005.

note steeling is not a spelling mistake, just an obscure meaning.


  1. Convention on the Rights of the Child
    U.N. General Assembly Document A/RES/44/25 (12 December 1989)
    Article 3
    1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
    2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
    3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

    Comment by cwb — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 11:55 am

  2. taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents,

    Has any father/parent had their rights taken into consideration by the “FhoneY CourT ????

    Comment by cwb — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 12:01 pm

  3. I’d understand better where opponents of Bradford’s bill are coming from if they put sound alternative proposals forward for protecting children. Because the fact is that children are being beaten and mistreated, by parents as well as other so-called caregivers. And in the past the beaters and mistreaters have been protected by section 59.
    So how else are children to be protected from adults who have managed to convince themselves of the rightness of their actions?

    Comment by PaulM — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 12:17 pm

  4. The question of how we might treat children can be divided into three systems.
    The two that are being proposed are

    A) Let the state legislate against what is inappropriate.
    B) Let the state through the family court decide what is appropriate.

    Or as our current legislation enforces, even though it may not be obvious to some, let the family prevail, and if in some cases the family should fail, let the state provide what help is necessary.

    Did it ever occur to you that it may be to the advantage of the socialist state to see CYPS fail.

    Think about it?

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 25th May 2006 @ 10:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar