THE FRAUDULENT CASE AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
The anti-corporal punishment lobbyists operate dishonestly, because they lie about their true motive and are aided and abetted in this by the news media.
By Barbara Faithfull
Why does the New Zealand news media mislead by not disclosing that it is really United Nations-backed leftist ideology that drives anti-corporal punishment activism? Why are these activists given an easy ride and never confronted about their true motivation? Clearly, because if this was revealed their campaign opposing all corporal punishment would collapse.
For just on thirty years (most of that time as secretary of the now-defunct Credo Society Incorporated) I have observed and monitored a leftist push to have corporal punishment outlawed in NZ, first in the school and now in the home. Along with this have been (largely successful) similar moves to undermine other forms of traditional authority, such as in the Church, Police force and other institutions of society.
I have always found the people opposing corporal punishment to be leftist aligned, and pleading a most noble and plausible cause : the “fighting of violence”. As far back as 1980 the Auckland Feminist Teachers had formed Campaign Against Violence in Education (CAVE) to lobby against school corporal punishment. A leading figure in all of that was lesbian activist Maryan Street, nowadays a Labour list Member of Parliament.
A present day campaign figurehead is Green MP Sue Bradford, who also happens to be a Maoist Communist, but it would be rare indeed to have that unpalatable fact acknowledged. All we ever hear is devious and emotive claptrap from such people about “caring” for our children, “treasuring” them and “seeking a violence-free society” etc. Yet not many years ago Bradford herself was front page news as she battled with police in violent protests! Talk about hypocrisy!
Nor can the media plead ignorance of the above facts, which are there for all to see on the web. A simple Google search of United Nation’s Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (and by the year 2009!) and all is revealed.
So we have a plethora of carping “advocates”, lobby groups and trendy-sounding agencies pushing the UN anti-corporal punishment line with their fraudulent bleatings about even light smacking being “violence”. This results in the media portraying them as being so noble minded and humanitarian, when in reality they are no more than covert and sycophantic agents of the UN.
According to the NZ Herald of 15th June 2009 they embody the “Yes Vote Coalition” which, in anticipation of an August Government referendum on the issue, is gearing up to defend the current anti-corporal punishment legislation from challenge. Coalition members named there are as follows:-
Deborah Morris-Travers, Yes Vote Coalition spokeswoman (and former extreme left Alliance cabinet minister); Dr. Hone Kaa, chairman of Te Kahui Mana Ririki; Barnadoes; Plunket; Unicef; Save The Children; Women’s Refuge; Parent Centres. Also of course the Children’s Commissioner etc.
So let’s have an opening of this Pandora’s Box : some open and honest media handling of this hot potatoe issue for a change. After all, the NZ public is entitled to informed debate — the wider picture – instead of the charade that has been presented to date, which has been reduced simplistically to the narrow question of whether or not to smack.. If not, the news media can hardly complain if it is accused of biased coverage of the issue.
Anti-Smacking Postal Referendum
July 31 – August 21 2009
In the first three weeks of August, NZ’ers will finally have a chance to have their say on Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law.
Since the Referendum was formally announced, there has been a media EXPLOSION
Campaign begins for referendum on child discipline – The Electoral Enrollment Centre begins a campaign on Monday to remind voters to check they are enrolled for a referendum on the anti-smacking law
- Vote unlikely to bring law change – The Government is unlikely to change the anti-smacking law regardless of the result of the $9 million referendum, Prime Minister John Key says
- MP’s slate smacking poll words – Because they don’t like the answer they come to, and the effect of the law they passed!
- Leaders won’t vote in smacking poll – Neither Prime Minister John Key nor Labour leader Phil Goff will vote in the smacking referendum
Big two coy on smacking vote – A national referendum is re-igniting debate on the anti-smacking law two years on
Latest smacking poll – same result – Family First Media Release 17 June 09
PM attempting to shut down Referendum debate – Family First Media Release 16 June 09
Thanks Julie, Up on Cyfstalk. I’m maintaining a thread there in full public view.
You soon will be…
For the past 72 hours, politicians and commentators have screamed that the Referendum question is confusing
“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ”
It seems pretty clear to us! The law currently says that a good parent raising great kids who uses a light smack for the purpose of correction is committing a criminal offence – subject to a possible complaint, possible investigation and temporary removal of kids by CYF, and possible investigation and in some cases prosecution by the police. (these have all happened – view cases HERE)
But please take a quick moment to listen to this…
Green MP Sue Bradford attempts to explain the effect of the anti-smacking law to an increasingly confused National Radio’s Sean Plunket this morning
Try and listen to the whole thing – and then ask yourself “so what am I legally allowed to do??” (An excellent written summary by Blogger Dave Crampton HERE )
Doesn’t it seem incredible that our politicians are confused by the Referendum question – yet expect parents to understand the anti-smacking law, how it will be enforced, and its effect on how they should parent.
This is why the referendum question is worded the way it is — because not even Sue Bradford knows the present answer.
And that’s why we’ll continue to fight to have it fixed.
Have a great weekend
After listening to the recording of Ms Bradford I am left with the impression that, although any assault on a child is illegal, the Police have been instructed not to prosecute assaults on children by parents that are inconsequential.
I would like an itemized list of assaults by a parent on their child that are deemed inconsequential by our Police.
I would also like to know what assurances there are that those inconsequential assaults don’t cause prosecutions for parents at a later time.
I’d also like to know why a democratically elected government chooses to represent the views of a world body rather than the views of those who elected them to govern. Why don’t you plan to govern for more than three years Mr Key?
I think the question is very straight forward, only Goff etc seem to be saying it is. Let’s not forget that we could have had this referendum at the election but Helen Clark wouldn’t allow it. We have her to blame for the Millions it is costing us, as it would have been cheaper to do it then… according to news reports at the time.
That should read… only Goff etc seem to be saying it isn’t!
The reason she wouldn’t allow it Scott was simple. She knew she was going to be hammered. She was in damage control. She didn’t want the people reminded of one of her greater pieces of misjudgment.
I witnessed a father being sentenced to 3 months imprisonment today at the Porirua District Court for an inconsequential assault on his son. The undisputed evidence describes the defendant picking his son up by both arms and placing him outside a room as his parents argued. Sue Bradford is full of sh!t!
Good to hear from Barabara Faithful again!
Barbara has a huge amount of carefully documented information about many of the radical feminists currently in power – it’s great to see some of it making it onto the WWW where future searches will find it.
Welcome back Barbara,
Men’s issues in NZ have a champion in her well researched posting.
Yes, Barbara Faithful has produced some scholarly, comprehensive analyses on MENZ and of course elsewhere over the years. I don’t always agree with her conservative views or apparent underlying religious beliefs, but it’s great to have her contribution here again.