Anti Smacking Law Starting To Do Damage
Family First lists some examples of real incidents that have occurred as a result of Green MP Sue Bradford's anti smacking legislation.
1. Mum and Dad seek parenting support from a social service agency because of the behaviour of their child. They mention that they have sometimes had to use a smack. They are immediately reported to CYF, their child is removed, and they have to spend five hours being interviewed by police.
2. Mum grounds her daughter. The daughter then tells CYF that mum smacks her. The social workers demand that she be removed from the home while an investigation takes place.
3. A solo mum allows her son to 'stay over' at a friends. While there, the host mum interrogates the son as to whether his mum smacks him. He admits that sometimes she does. As a result, CYF investigate, interview her other children, and inform the son that mum is never to smack him and if she does, he is to ring CYF.
It's already happening - to NZ families as a result of the anti-smacking law.
Families have contacted Family First with many examples of how harmful this new law is to good parents, and these cases are just the latest. In the above cases, no abuse was found, no charges laid, children eventually returned - just good parents traumatised by the events!
Eventually these incidents will become more common and more serious and parents will begin to lose their children-temporarily at first and then permanently.
That is not alarmism-that is reality.
The Nationa/ACT government needs to repeal this law, while it still can.
Tax cuts, RMA reform, local body reform, school choice, de-regulation etc are all burningly urgent.
Nothing is more important however than restoring parents right to discipline their own children in a fair and reasonable manner.
If the new government really cares about freedom and personal responsibilty, they must prove it by repealing Sue Bradford's pernicious law.
1. Mum and Dad seek parenting support from a social service agency because of the behaviour of their child. They mention that they have sometimes had to use a smack. They are immediately reported to CYF, their child is removed, and they have to spend five hours being interviewed by police.
2. Mum grounds her daughter. The daughter then tells CYF that mum smacks her. The social workers demand that she be removed from the home while an investigation takes place.
3. A solo mum allows her son to 'stay over' at a friends. While there, the host mum interrogates the son as to whether his mum smacks him. He admits that sometimes she does. As a result, CYF investigate, interview her other children, and inform the son that mum is never to smack him and if she does, he is to ring CYF.
It's already happening - to NZ families as a result of the anti-smacking law.
Families have contacted Family First with many examples of how harmful this new law is to good parents, and these cases are just the latest. In the above cases, no abuse was found, no charges laid, children eventually returned - just good parents traumatised by the events!
Eventually these incidents will become more common and more serious and parents will begin to lose their children-temporarily at first and then permanently.
That is not alarmism-that is reality.
The Nationa/ACT government needs to repeal this law, while it still can.
Tax cuts, RMA reform, local body reform, school choice, de-regulation etc are all burningly urgent.
Nothing is more important however than restoring parents right to discipline their own children in a fair and reasonable manner.
If the new government really cares about freedom and personal responsibilty, they must prove it by repealing Sue Bradford's pernicious law.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
2/02/2009 11:50:00 AM
13 Comments:
Of course in the three examples you quote the parents were Maori unemployed sickness beneficiaries weren't they.
Real example.
Most of my friends growing up receiving beatings from good white christian parents and there being nothing anyone can do about it.
If National doesn't repeal the anti smacking legislation, I won't be voting for them next 'round. And if ACT doesn't start getting vocal and push for a repeal, I won't direct my support that way either.
How gross - my parents never hit me, I am now in my 63rd year, and I never hit my kids either, and they don't hit my grands either! (Funny that, well I was not brought up by fundy Christians) I am a good person and have no criminal convictions and neither do my adult children.
"Of course in the three examples you quote the parents were Maori unemployed sickness beneficiaries weren't they." What? Are a member of the National Front or the KKK Baxter?
Dream on Trev.
Huhana
LaFemme-nor should you.
Huhana-mine hardly ever hit me either Huhana-maybe that's why we're both so smart.
I still get the impression that I did not experience their intended emotions when I read through their examples. I just read their e-letter today (assuming this is where you also read this).
I believe if they believe that there is a chance a child is being abused they should absolutely try and verify it. How much worse would it be if it turned the child was being abused and they simply ignored it?
My parents NEVER hit or smacked me Trev or used a weapon. The Act is actually "Repeal of Section 59" not the Anti Smacking Bill! (La Femme ....) Section 59 of the Crimes Act actually gave parents the right to beat their children with a piece of 4 x 2, a whip, a crop, a wooden spoon, a broom - you name it.
Huhana
"Section 59 of the Crimes Act actually gave parents the right to beat their children with a piece of 4 x 2, a whip, a crop, a wooden spoon, a broom - you name it."
No it didn't liar.
It gave parents the right to use 'reasonable force' to disipline their kids.
EXOCET
I think the problem is actually CYFs, it has always been out of control and I have heard these stories long before any adaption of the smacking laws..
@EXOCET-
Which is a highly subjective term and something which one is not even allowed to use against pets. It makes you wonder why the protest only happened in regards to children and not pets.
@Huhana-
The examples you used were a little excessive in some instances. A 4x2? whip? Although I agree with your general message.
Thank you reddeath26 (you 22 year old - oh my goodness I am an old lady and a granny!)for your support.
The reality "EXOCET" is that I am not a liar - Section 59 was used as a defence in Court for using weapons on children. And as Reddeath26 says you cannot beat your pets (animals) in that fashion. So its OK to do that to your children?
Dream on EXOCET!
Huhana
Huhana, stop promoting your lies. Remember that Palestinian doctor you loved to accuse Israel of "targeting" his three daughters?
Turns out Hamas was using his house, and surrounding area to fire upon Israeli troops, knowing well that the occupants inside would end up as collatoral damage giving the necessary PR which people like YOU are helping them with.
Zero tolerance from now on, that much of what you type on your lies is complete bull.
@mah29001-
Is there any chance that you mean the Somalia which was screwed over by the west? You know the one where reforms forced upon them by the IMF heavily undermined their economy?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home