24 Comments »

1. 

   Will be there and bringing my workmates.

   Regards

   Scrap

   Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 3:26 pm

2. 

   Awesome!
   I will be delivering my oral submission to the Law & Order Select Committee in support of the petition for a FC enquiry at 9:35am on the morning of Wednesday 28 March. I will ensure that my submission in some way compliments the march; i. e. anti-Braford Bill/anti-social engineering.
   After this I will take great pleasure and pride in gathering at Civic Square to support the voice of the 80-90% opposing Bradford’s bill.

   Comment by xsryder — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 4:07 pm

3. 

   I wish you the very best Wayne, and any Canterbury parents or concerned people I hope that we can get a gathering of people in the square? Just imagine the impact it would have on government? The difference I see between kiwi kids that make it and kids that don’t , most often is one caring adult . If anyone can Canterbury can ?

   Comment by dad4justice — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 5:00 pm

4. 

   This is not a good post, with the date 19th march at the date and the protest date down the bottom. Who ever posted this can you edit it so someone who is looking for information doesn’t have to decipher it.

   Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 5:05 pm

5. 

   I agree with Bevan. The date 28 March should be at the top of the post.
   Repeat….Wednesday 28 March (next week).

   Email sent to Sue Bradford;
   Ms Bradford,

   In your press release “Fear on the march” dated 20 March 2007, you appear to shed all responsibility for the likely negative outcome of repealing s59 onto the Police by stating “As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds for discretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whether the public interest would be served by a prosecution”. Are you serious? Public interest to dictate child safety? You would be relying on Police discernment of “public interest” to ensure child safety, yet you and your supporters ignore “public interest” by advancing a Bill which the public clearly opposes.

   Might I say that just a little over 3 years ago the police were called to my home; the complaint being of “physical abuse” against my x-partner. The Police were prompt and interviewed my x-partner first before entering my home and speaking with me. When the police entered, one of the officers put his arm around me and said “don’t worry, you’ve done nothing wrong”. The officer then spoke into his radio communicating back to base stating that the “complaint was false”.

   Now Ms Bradford, the police in his case had “ample grounds for discretion”, yet even though they discovered that the complaint was false, and I explained that I was our child’s primary caregiver and that I had applied for custody and was waiting a Judges decision, the police used their “ample discretion” by escorting the “false accuser” to a women’s refuge (you know, that industry whose funding relies on unquestioned self initiated statistics). It has taken more than three years to have my relationship with my son (and only child) reinstated; I have been forced to sell my home; I’ve gone backwards by 20 years; and the case has cost the taxpayer at least one hundred thousand dollars.
   Is this the sort of “ample police discretion” that you believe will protect children and parents from vexatious complaints? And do you really think that the Police, Family Court and CYFS are able to distinguish between vexatious claims and actual child abuse before their own intervention causes child abuse? What evidence supports your belief? How much compensation should be awarded to victims of vexatious claims?

   Also, you claim that “some of those planning to join next week’s marches against [your] repeal of the s59 defense for assaults on children, are not being told the full story by the organizers”. I would like to point out that your Bill and accompanying propaganda is based on flawed information, statistics and reasoning. In your campaign you have cited Swedish history and statistics which have been shown to be at least misleading, at worst blatant lies. Would you now care to comment further on who is not providing the full story and who is being misled? You also stated earlier that your Bill completely outlawed smacking, yet more recently you have back-pedaled on the Bill’s “interpretation”, increasing the confusion and trepidation that surrounds your Bill.

   Might I suggest as a law abiding and intelligent citizen, that you seek other ways of dealing with the hideous child abuse situation in New Zealand that does not lead to further destruction of natural biological families? No one in this country is stupid enough to think that Banning smacking will prevent drunken, stressed, P (or other drug) induced parents from beating and killing children. You would help children far more by supporting harsher penalties for P convictions (Greens opposed), increase the drinking age (Greens opposed), reduce marijuana use (Green’s want decriminalization), strengthen families (enquiry into why Family Court usually awards sole custody contradictory to conclusions of local and international research) and reduce poverty (family wealth going to children instead of lawyers).

   Ms Bradford, you personally are dragging the Green party away from their hard fought respect on environmental issues into a political abyss, but more importantly, you and the supporters of your Bill are dragging our nation into dictatorship and social chaos.

   I am well informed, have followed the progress (ironic term) of your Bill, and will be there on Wednesday 28 March to show my support for families, democracy and the ignored collective voice of our nation. It’s time for “spin” to take a back seat to commonsense.

   Wayne Pruden

   Comment by xsryder — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 6:36 pm

6. 

   If I can raise the funds by taking 4/5 to Wellington I am tempted to take Javan and the War-4-Kids WAGON – My pasengers will need billets – Javan and I have plenty of FAMILY in wellington and on the way

   Onward – Jim
   http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz

   Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Tue 20th March 2007 @ 9:02 pm

7. 

   Wht are you guys so keen to hold onto your rights to hit children? Its not about the state wanting to ‘come into your home and tell you how to raise children’ as so many keep saying. Thats just nonsense. Why is it that you’re not allowed to hit adults? Is that because the state wants to come into your home and prevent you from hitting adults? Someone has to set some of the rules that we live by to some extent. I don’t think hitting the most defensless and vulnerable is better than hitting adults. What good does it do that proper parenting can’t achieve?

   Comment by Jim — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 6:48 am

8. 

   Jim froths “What good does it do that proper parenting can’t achieve?”

   The shark here has a question Jim ,
   Why has this government twice voted at United Nations level NOT to treat mothers and fathers as equal parents ???

   Good question Shark , but Jim won’t have an answer , simple as ABC stuff isn’t it Jim boy, if you’re not fast you are last . Bye – bye Labour/Greens =freakshow , lol , as enough is bloody well enough , if you cared about kids and child abuse then you would support the family , not f..ken destroy it . Sorry about the very un pc f word darling sonic ? See you on kiwiblog or public address later !!!Oh yes, nearly forgot , you coming along to the March??? What kind of creature do my special Batman tracking devices start looking for , a snake would be a good start.

   Comment by dad4justice — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 7:04 am

9. 

   Come on sonic the shark is very busy in Court today ? Yawn , yawn , I like the Jim name darling , fooled us all, yawn , yawn . Go to work shark this is to easy !!

   Comment by dad4justice — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 7:09 am

10. 

    Jim,
    I think the arguement isn’t really about a parent’s right to hit children, but a variety of issues;
    1-Our society has been subjected to enormous social changes of late (inc. abortion, prostitution, and marriage law reform). Society has had enough of the tampering with our families and communities.
    2-Many oppose the possibility that “discretion” will be used to ignore some situations, but used to good effect to achieve a desired result in others (just as false claims of DV and sexual abuse are used routinely in Family Court to achieve the upper hand now). As it is now, we all know that the police have discretionary powers in dealing with domestic disputes. They are unlikely to issue proceedings on some complaints of DV (i.e. woman hits man, child hits parent, child hits child), but are likely to act on others (i.e. man hits women). If s59 is repealed, add to the equation …..”mother smacks child”…..and ….”father smacks child”.
    3-Repeal of s59 will create confusion (even Sue and Helen can’t decide on the interpretation of the Bill they support), and the lack of clarity and need for descretion will inevitably require judicial intervention, and we all know how efficient, caring, skilled, inexpensive and open our Family Court and CYFS are…and that’s where these smacking cases will end up.
    4-Statistically children who were smacked end up equally or better adjusted than children who have never been smacked.
    5-Bradford’s push for the repeal of s59 is solely to iliminate it as a defence for child abuse. The question should then be asked…are our judges not skilled enough to distinguish between “smacked” and “abused’ children? Perhaps upskilling judges would be a better option than repealing s59?
    BTW I have never hit my own child, and hope I never do, but I reject state intervention into my family, and increasing the injustice caused by an flawed FC system.

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 10:28 am

11. 

    Thank you xsryder. I endorse your comments fully. I have no faith at all that the legal system will provide justice or reasonable outcomes for those who will be charged and I agree, it is men who overwhelmingly are going to be prosecuted even though we know that most physical abuse is perpetrated by women. I totally support the biological family as well but like so many men, have been shafted in court by lying lawyers. The children suffer most at a time when the family is already dividing its assets. My ten cents worth tho is this. If your children are using drugs, its tool late to hit them. People should look at the examples they have set themselves. I know its all screwed up these days as my children now live much of the time with the x and her partner endorses the use of drugs and has really liberal attitudes about most things such as alchol use and casual sex so our influence is somewhat watered down. Its high time for more men to get active, fight for what is right and not allow the feminist bigots to be the only ones who comment on what it means to be male or female

    Comment by Don — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 11:16 am

12. 

    Jim’s making a useful point about what you can expect from the pro-ban minority. They will attempt to connect “fathers” and “beating children” for all its worth.

    We have to leave the fact we’re men right out of this. The issue is popular opinion being denied, for vague legislation that promotes unproven benefit.

    Comment by Rob Case — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 11:38 am

13. 

    What good does it do that proper parenting can’t achieve?

    That would be proper parenting according to who? The 80% of parents who oppose Brafords Folly or the 20 percenters like you?

    The reality is that the State is intruding in the disciplining of children by parents. Unless there is abuse the State has no place to intrude.

    A smack is not abuse and making parents into criminals if they smack a child is the thin edge of the wedge.

    Next the State will be telling you what you can feed kids, what religious instruction they can recieve….

    The road to facisim is built upon laws like this.

    Scrap

    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 21st March 2007 @ 12:19 pm

14. 

    This just in from Britain where the nanny state appears even more binkers than in lil’ ol’ nz…….

    Is your baby playing with its toes yet? If not the government wants to know why

    Babies will be assessed on their gurgling, babbling and toe-playing abilities when they are a few months old under a legally enforced national curriculum for children from birth to five published by the government yesterday.

    Every nursery, childminder and reception class in Britain will have to monitor children’s progress towards a set of 69 government-set “early learning goals”, recording them against more than 500 development milestones as they go.

    Shhhhhh.
    Don’t tell Comrade Bradfordski.

    Comment by Stephen — Thu 22nd March 2007 @ 4:18 pm

15. 

    Strenghten the MARCH on PARLIAMENT

    The War-4-Kids WAGON goes Monday after School if petrol is funded – I can pay overhead only

    If you want this to happen to you and your Kids don’t do anything

    Source;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkWcwJyagW4

    Onward – Jim

    http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 23rd March 2007 @ 8:28 am

16. 

    More on Smacking – Strengthen the MARCH on PARLIAMENT Wednesday 28th – War-4-Kids WAGON will go if funded – I can pay overhead only

    Source;

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4002105a10.html

    Urgency plan for smacking bill
    By TRACY WATKINS – The Dominion Post | Friday, 23 March 2007

    Outraged opponents of controversial anti-smacking legislation are rallying for a final push as the Government seeks support to get the law through under urgency.

    That will increase tensions over what has been a bitterly debated bill as pro- and anti-smacking groups prepare to march on Parliament on Wednesday, when the debate resumes.

    Green MP Sue Bradford – whose bill outlawing physical punishment looks certain to have the numbers to become law – confirmed yesterday that the Government was seeking support to force Parliament into urgency so it could be passed next week.

    She said she was delighted with any move to pass the bill quickly. “It would be great to finish it.”
    But National leader John Key said it was showing “utter contempt” for the democratic process.

    “This is a deeply cynical abuse of power as Labour tries to clear the decks of this controversial issue.”
    Prime Minister Helen Clark has had to defend herself against claims that some Labour MPs are being railroaded into supporting the bill.

    She has dismissed calls for Labour to let its MPs vote according to their consciences, saying similar legislation in the past – such as the abolition of corporal punishment – was not treated as a conscience issue.

    The legislation was facing months of delays as opponents used filibuster tactics to stall the law change for as long as possible.

    They were hoping that, by delaying it, they could put Labour MPs who opposed the legislation under increasing pressure from conservative constituents.

    If the bid for urgency is successful, MPs will have to sit into the night and next day till the final vote is taken.
    But the Government will need the Maori Party and at least two NZ First MPs to agree to urgency and both parties say they will not decide on their support till Tuesday.

    NZ First MPs Doug Woolerton and Brian Donnelly both support the Bradford bill.

    Ms Bradford said that, without urgency, the debate was set to drag on for months.

    That would create a legislative log jam.

    “I really don’t see the problem: With a bill like this, which has been through the full select committee process, there were thousands of submissions, the bill’s been out for nearly two years, so there’s been a massive public and media debate.”

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 23rd March 2007 @ 8:32 am

17. 

    Wellington – Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law – March on Parliment To Protest – War-4-Kids WAGON at your service

    YO!

    – Wellington
    – Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
    – March on Parliment To Protest
    – War-4-Kids WAGON at your service
    – (LINK) or Go http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/15261.html

    REALITY CHECK

    – However two and half tanks there — one/two in Wellington and there abouts and two and a half back to North Shore city ($500-00) and perhaps $100-0 for Javan and I to eat along the way is way beyond my **Single Persons Invalids Benefit** from which I get NOTHING to feed-Father and **Equal** Parent Javan.

    – I budget $40-0 per week for petrol for Javan and my needs and use every drop of it. That $40-0 needs to be in the tank when we return to last for the next week. Registration due 1st week April $184-00

    – I pledge the overhead only

    – Others must fund the rest or we simply can’t go

    – Either paying bums on seats or SPONSORSHIP

    TRIP

    – 1600-/-4 O’clock
    – Leaving 15B Roseberry Ave Birkenhead, Monday after school
    – Staying Taupo — Sanson — Wellington — Sanson — Home Late Thursday
    – Quite happy to pick-up
    – MacDonald’s Greenlane
    – Wendy’s Otara
    – Towns on Hwy’s 1-2-27-1 from Tirua — Sanson-Foxton-Etc
    – You will need to arrange bedding and billets.

    Onward — Jim
    “““““““““““`
    Hi again Mitch,

    I am the protest organiser of the protest that was planned and has now been cancelled outside former Principal Family Court Judge Mahoney’s residence.

    I cancelled the protest under the principle of good faith where it is the expectation of a coalition of fathers that the recently announced review of the justice and courts systems will include the injustices that have become embedded into the hstory if not the applications presently employed by the Family Court.

    I am hoping to discuss with you the opportunity for either me to speak at the march, or if a more moderate view is sought Allan Harvey from the Union of Fathers. The Union of Fathers are still unconfirmed if they will actively support teh march, although some of their memebership will obviously be there. Allan is a good speaker, he is a teacher who would be succinct and clear. I am a good speaker. I too would be succinct and clear. I am happy to present a copy of the plan of any speech I would give before giving it.

    I ask because I believe what we have to offer will lend strenght to your initiative. Jim Bailey may be coming down from Auckland with a group but it is too early to know. Money is his restraint, where he cannot afford petrol. In my view, if you have any access to supporting funds then his pressence is worth every penny as an investment.

    I’m in Wellington from Tuesday midday. I’m in parliament from 1.30pm

    0273902169

    regards,
    Ben Easton.

    Mitch Lees wrote:
    Hi Guys,

    I had an elderly lady in Tauranga ring me this morning. She was enquiring about the possiblity of getting a lift to the Wellington March. Can you help her?

    Cheers

    Mitch

    On 3/21/07, Benjamin Easton wrote:
    Jim,

    I’ll try and organise some support from down here to get you down.

    Ben.

    Jim Bailey wrote:
    If I can raise the funds by taking 4/5 to Wellington I am tempted to take Javan and the War-4-Kids WAGON
    Wellington peaceful protest march details
    MARCH ON PARLIAMENT
    Against Anti Smacking Bill
    DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?
    Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!
    Join us in a PEACEFUL protest
    Wednesday 28th March 2007
    Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then
    advancing to Parliament
    *This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

    For more information, see
    http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mail
    [email protected]
    Mitch Lees
    Representative
    Phone: 027 243 1676
    Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law – March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm
    March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
    Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm
    Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Anti Smacking Bill
    Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill
    “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
    Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford’s proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.
    Sue Bradford’s bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be `ratted out,’ Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours? The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place – wasting valuable time and resources � and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger � hardly what they need.
    I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct. The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It’s time to push back. The present law allowing “reasonable force” should be left intact.
    The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.
    ENDS
    Coalition Against Nanny State’s Anti-Smacking Law
    http://smackingback.blogspot.com/
    ““““““““
    Onward in Coalition � Jim Bailey � JimBWarrior

    Founder – http://www.HandsOnEqualParent.org.nz
    And – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HandsOnEqualParent-News

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Sun 25th March 2007 @ 12:23 am

18. 

    Hi there,
    You might like to take a look at two poems I’ve written that are pro-smacking. I’ve included the direct links.

    http://www.poetrywithamission.co.nz/poems9ah%20-%20A%20Time%20And%20Place.htm

    http://www.poetrywithamission.co.nz/poems9aq%20-%20And%20So%20It%20Goes.htm

    Regards,
    Lance Landall.

    Comment by Lance Landall — Thu 29th March 2007 @ 3:35 pm

19. 

    Lance,

    May I use your Poem in my Poems by Parents link on my website

    http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/69741.html

    Onward – Jim

    Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Thu 29th March 2007 @ 3:48 pm

20. 

    Hi Jim,
    Anybody is fee to use my poems [which is stated on my website]. So long as they don’t alter my poems, or make mistakes if typing them out. So feel free to use them in any way you wish. That’s what they’re there for.
    Regards,
    Lance

    Comment by Lance Landall — Sat 31st March 2007 @ 9:43 pm

21. 

    my son had his two sons removed 4mths ago after hed provided 3/2yrs of a loving caring enviroment(also with my unconditional help)they had been taken off mother dut to her drug problems!4mths ago 8yrol disclosed dad had “smacked”him at interview by cyfs they removed him &4yr brother(whom hadnt disclosed anything) from my son!then to add another nail in our cross last week realized theyd made a big mistake took boys into foster care
    My son&I are exhausted beating ou heads against brick walls dealing with CYFS Family court etc etc
    Any one ou ther with strong advise & also lawyer anti smacking bill&CYFS please help us
    A heartbroken Nan
    Lorna Hendry

    Comment by lorna hendry — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 6:18 pm

22. 

    Where in Nz are you or your son Lorna? Union of fathers helps but it is hard at a distance. we have branches in 5 areas. What does the CYFS care plan envisage? You can write to me c/- [email protected]

    Comment by Allan Harvey — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 6:29 pm

23. 

    Sadly you son’s plight is due to the misandry that appears to be policy at CYFS. This link tells the story of a mother who beat one of her children severely and CYFS supported having her remain out of jail to care for her other two children. Even the Judge appeared confused at CYFS stance: The judge said he did not understand the position of Child, Youth and Family, which provided supporting evidence for the bail application.
    Your son is disadvantaged because he is being discriminated against by a sexist government department staffed predominantly by women, many of whom have a chip on their shoulder.

    Comment by SicKofNZ — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 7:29 pm

24. 

    Hey Allan, Family First may be able to help you in some way also… Just a thought.

    Comment by julie — Sat 6th June 2009 @ 8:34 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.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ