“No Smacking” has changed to “Smacking”
In a stunning turnaround, Green MP Sue Bradford has told parents that smacking is not a criminal offence and implied that groups like Barnardos, Plunket, Every Child Counts and politicians who have said that the aim of the law was to ban parents physically punishing their children are misleading the public.
In a media release from the Green party (29th September), Bradford says ‘smacking has never been a criminal offence, and still isn’t.’
Yet only last year, she told Newstalk ZB ‘it is already illegal to smack children but her bill removes a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction.’
And in the original 2003 media release from the Green party launching her amendment to section 59, it is entitled “Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
“Sue Bradford is confused by her own law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and is misrepresenting the real effect and purpose of the anti-smacking law. She believes smacking is assault, yet more than 80% of NZ’ers continue to disagree.”
Family First NZ continues to call on the politicians to change the law so that it clearly states that non-abusive smacking is not a crime (as wanted by 86% of NZ’ers according to NZ Herald poll), and to then tackle the real causes of child abuse. 310,000 signatures we all collected and we are getting a referendum even though it will be a mail vote in 2009.
But what is more vital for Sue Bradford and Labour than the people of New Zealand is the profile they have in the United Nations.
New book documents how prohibition was achieved in New Zealand
United Nations website
A new book, published in February 2008, documents events leading to the achievement of full prohibition of corporal punishment in New Zealand in 2007, when the legal defence of using reasonable force “by way of correction”, used by parents who had assaulted their children, was repealed.
Unreasonable Force: New Zealand’s Journey Towards Banning the Physical Punishment of Children, written by Beth Wood, Ian Hassall and George Hook with Robert Ludbrook, examines the 40 years of advocacy and debate which led to the repeal last year of section 59 of the Crimes Act.
The book identifies the factors that contributed to a climate in New Zealand where law reform was eventually possible, explores the roots of the old law on physical discipline in early Roman law and English common law, considers the role of religious convictions in the use of physical punishment and opposition to reform, examines the human rights imperative to give children equal protection from assault, and investigates the role of the media in the national debate. It also looks at what lies ahead now that legal prohibition is in place.
The book can be ordered using this order form (PDF).
The law prohibiting smacking children is not just for New Zealand. It is for a United Nations movement and for New Zealand to repeal this law means that the movement world wide taking away parents responsibilities and giving them to the state will possibly be ruined and could start a chain reaction for parents all over the world.
This is not about children but about so called professionals who are working as a small team to provide care for all children throughout the world by taking away history. They think that they can dictate to parents how they should act in the best interest of social engineering.
UN attacks Supernanny as it accuses Britain of ‘demonising’ its children
Daily Mail (UK) 4th October 2008
Reality TV shows such as Supernanny infringe children’s dignity, claim United Nations advisers. Such programmes invade their privacy and portray children ‘in a terrible light’. It is one of a string of complaints set down by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Members expressed concern about high levels of poverty, teenage imprisonment, public attitude to children and Britain’s failure to tell youngsters about their UN-guaranteed rights. The committee has previously urged the Government to incorporate its 1991 child convention into law, in the same way as the European Convention on Human Rights was made part of British law under the Human Rights Act of 1998. However critics say the charter interferes with parents’ rights.
…The committee’s concerns and the need for Britain to adhere closely to the UN child conventions’ rules have been promoted heavily in recent years by figures like Cherie Blair and the English Children’s Commissioner Sir Al Aynsley-Green.
For more read Family First newsletter
Does she think we are that stupid, it is just because of the election, her party knows that they have made a grave mistake.
Maybe someone will realise one day of the mistakes that they have made against men, and the effect on men of these family laws make this the main reason for voting for a political party and outweigh all others.
Yes, right on the button I think Perseus. Greens and Labour will be seen as primarily responsible for passing Bradford’s law change and they will be “caned” for it at the election. Bradford has finally recognized this home truth and now makes this pathetic attempt at damage control by calling black white and basically lying. That’s nothing new of course; her entire campaign and that of her supporters was almost completely made up of lies. However, National is just as culpable because they voted as a group for the same law change. Sadly, most NZers continue to oscillate between the two deadbeat parties rather than getting in behind smaller but better alternatives.
That’s right Hans, the problem still remains in the passing of legislation without finding out what the people really want. If the Government spent any time at all researching this issue and asking for an opinion poll I think they would find that most of NZ didn’t want this bill passed.
Lack of information can work both ways – how else would we have achieved MMP? How many NZers actually knew what they were voting for.
Now the Nat’s are going to claim the throne but I know they have a lot to answer for also.