In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

We’ve been here before: a lesson from history (1989).

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 23, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

We’ve been here before: a lesson from history (1989).
Thursday, 22.03.2007, 10:49pm (GMT12)


Repetition  of the 1989 trickery to ban corporal punishment in schools

On 2nd August 1989, as secretary of the now-defunct Credo Society Inc., I issued a press statement about a Submission I had made that day to the  Parliamentary Justice and Law Reform Select Committee. We were  opposing moves to outlaw corporal punishment in N.Z. schools, as was permitted in Section 59 of the Crimes Act. (At that stage there was nary a whisper from anti-family activists to have banned  the other part of Section 59  which permitted parental corporal punishment)  Submissions were also being heard  in relation to other amendments to this  Act. I found the whole event surreptitious to say the least.

For a city the size of Auckland I found it scandalous that only a few hours of one day were set aside to hear such submissions, and that, moreover, the hearing seemed dominated by Socialist lobby group types, such as AIDS Foundation, Auckland Lesbian/Gay Lawyers,  ACCL, Mental Health Foundation (just a year after their great Telethon hoax – supplying bogus sex abuse data for all the publicity) all with their various ideological axes to grind.  Those opposing the abolition of school corporal punishment appeared to be only   Michael Drake of Tyndale Park Christian School and myself on behalf of Credo Society.

Moreover, Mr. Drake, accompanied by a considerable group of concerned parents, had, to his credit,  only made an appearance because of my notifying him two days before of an extended time for the hearing of submissions. Conversely the Socialist lobby group folk seemed fully informed about  the Hearing.

Also,  I was disturbed to find NO press representatives present, so . I subsequently delivered copies of my press statement to several media outlets, although only Newstalk ZB used it. Prior to that  broadcast I had phoned editor Nigel Horrocks about it, and was most interested to hear that they had not even  been informed that the Hearing was  to be held in Auckland!  So much for democracy!

Socialists  behind such activism – plus the U.N.

As with the 2007 campaign which is spearheaded by list M.P. Sue Bradford – a Maoist communist no less – back in the 1980’s also the lobbying by activists was characterized by massive deception and chicanery in general. In  1980  Auckland Feminist Teachers (one of them, lesbian Maryan Street, now a  Labour  list M.P.) formed the lobby group Campaign Against Violence in Education (CAVE). This brought together a motley array of anti-capitalist, anti-authority  dissidents, including Felix Donnelly, Ian Mitchell, Matt Robson, also  of the  Socialist Action League, Waikato University psychologists Jane and James Richie, Jill Amos, Green Bay High School head Des Mann etc.

As in 2007, back then the news media seemed prepared to publish unquestioningly all manner of  emotive and baseless allegations and general anti-corporal punishment propaganda. Documented examples in Credo’s  Credonews No. 2 of October 1983 included the Richies expressing the view that “Physical punishment is assault”; “N.Z. adults are bullies”; “Schools with corporal punishment  breed more violent pupils”.

A few further examples of dishonest and deceitful argument from such lobbyists, as recorded in my 1989 submission:-

  • “Corporal punishment in schools should be abolished because it is the single most significant reason for N.Z. being violent.” – Dr. John Dobson, Director of Community Psychological Medical Services, Christchurch, TV2 News 7th August 1984.

  • “The continued existence of corporal punishment was responsible for the upsurge of violence in the community.” – Ian Mitchell of C.A.V.E.. N.Z.Herald, 10th September 1984

  • “Teachers who use corporal punishment are incompetent.” etc.- Russell Marshall, Minister of Education, Radio N.Z. News 4th October 1985

  • (Corporal punishment) “teaches children that those who love you hit you”……and (until parental use of  physical punishment diminishes) “N.Z. will continue to lament its violence families and its injured children.”. – Jane Richie, Sunday Supplement, Radio N.Z. 7th May 1989.

The latter comment contains a very early hint of what was in store for N.Z. with the corporal punishment issue :  to  have abolished  the Section 59 defence for such punishment not only for parent substitutes such as teachers in schools etc., but also for parents and guardians  in the home.  I used to challenge such activists that this was really their true goal, but their devious  tactic was to retort “Oh no! We’re just concerned about violence in schools!” Now, nearly twenty years later,  the violence and disruption in schools is such that the Government is pouring millions of dollars into schemes to try and cope with it!

United Nations ultimately  behind such activism

As I pointed out in that 2nd August 1989 press statement – and largely ignored by the N.Z. media – certain major factors were being concealed from the public :-

1.”The fact that plans are afoot to also outlaw a parent’s right to administer corporal punishment. Usually only school corporal punishment is mentioned for abolition.”

2. “The real reason for outlawing corporal punishment in N.Z. is not for any of the excuses  usually given, e.g. ‘to reduce the level of violence in society’ etc. It is because the Government has a long-term, covert  policy to meet the requirements of the United Nations through the U.N. Convention  on the Rights of the Child, currently being worked on by the U.N.”

3. “It is therefore not even just N.Z. – the deceitful  impression commonly given –  but many other countries also which are being pressured to conform. Credo Society therefore submits that there is a hidden political agenda being pursued by the Government by dishonest, deceitful and thoroughly undemocratic means, and in no way with the informed and considered consent of  the people. In reality it represents a blatant subverting of the authority of the home and family and education system.”

Fast forward now to 2007 and we find incontrovertible evidence of such a United Nations plan in the form of  the Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children, which was launched in 2001. A web search under that name, or  under  “U.N. Global Campaign against physical punishment” yields information on the   Report  of the U.N. Secretary  General’s Study on Violence Against Children. There we find that the Report has called on all countries  to prohibit all corporal punishment in the family, at school, and everywhere else, by 2009!


So despite all the heart-tugging and deceitful outpourings from the likes of M.P. Sue Bradford and Prime Minister Helen Clark and others, in their attempts to justify the current anti-smacking bill,  the true  reason behind it is something else entirely; something decidedly sinister and oppressive, and – as I see it –   simply a further chapter in the ongoing, long-term,  ideological struggle to subvert the moral fabric and  stability of the basic  unit of society : the family.

Indeed, on his Radio Pacific talkback programme on 15th March, in discussing what lies  behind the anti-smacking bill,  John Banks  presented concrete evidence of just such Socialist anti-family manoeuvrings in N.Z.As he explained it:-

“One compelling piece of evidence was the  U.N. Doha Declaration for the Family…which called on governments of the world to strengthen the institution of marriage and give the family unit the widest possible protection…. Government representatives met at Doha, Qatar, 29th November 2004 for the Doha International Conference for the Family…but seemingly with no N.Z. media reporting of this.

“The Preamble read : ‘ The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society, as declared in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’”

The  resultant call for action   included the following : “That all governments, all international organizations, and all members of civil societies……develop programmes to stimulate and encourage the strong building of family life, including measures to preserve and defend the institution of marriage. That   the quality of all education should be equal, so that across the world programmes of family stability strengthen policies and programmes that will enable the family to break the cycle of poverty and live together in harmony, uphold, preserve and defend the institution of the family.”

Banks explained that the Conference met again on 6th December 2006, with   government representatives  being called upon to vote for the above Declaration.  “It was overwhelmingly carried by the U.N. constituent countries, and voted against by the N.Z. representative, saying ‘ it promoted ONE model of  family at the expense of OTHER models of the family’!”

As Banks observed there, in relation to the activism behind the current  anti-smacking bill :  “You can easily understand why the moral and social and economic and philosophical fabric of N.Z. has now been almost successfully dismantled….What we reap is what we sow, and what we’ve sown is what we’ve reaped.”

He was specifically referring there to his earlier discussion of 1960’s and 1970’s radical feminist activism, and their anti-family  agenda for N.Z. Most certainly it does now seem to have almost all  come to fruition.

Barbara Faithfull,

22nd March 2007

e-mail :

Phone/Fax : 09-480-9995

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: