Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/watchingcyfs/

How Bradford supporters are guilty of misleading the public regards the Swedish experience banning smacking.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 12, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

How Bradford supporters are guilty of misleading the public regards the Swedish experience banning smacking.
Wednesday, 11.04.2007, 12:52pm (GMT12)

http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sweden.pdf

Advertisements

One Response to “How Bradford supporters are guilty of misleading the public regards the Swedish experience banning smacking.”

  1. Hi all
    Someone was kind enough to put this on my blog and hope you agree to put it on yours
    …………………………………………………………

    Kick Sue & Helen’s S59 Bill – In the Nutshell
    Politics, posted: 29-MAR-2007 11:53

    Much of the debate around the Anti-Smacking Bill is focussing on the details and the semantics, and forgetting the big picture…

    1. How many of the children who have died from “child abuse” were already known to government agencies before they died?

    Answer: Most, if not all. Therefore, there is no need to accept hearsay accusations of child mistreatment (from busybodies, estranged spouses, etc) since social workers, doctors and other public officials are generally already aware of children “at risk”.

    2. How many children died from smacking (as the NZ public understand the term), and how many from beating, hitting or bashing (as the bill’s proponents call it)?

    Answer: None died from smacking, because it is “reasonable force”. In fact, none were abused by smacking, because it is “reasonable force”. Only children who were “beaten, hit or bashed” ended up dead. We know that those are all “unreasonable force” and NZ juries do find such parents guilty, UNDER EXISTING LAW. No law change is required to stop child abuse. Instead, questions need to be asked about what factors lead to higher incidence of child abuse (eg welfare, relationship breakdown, etc).

    3. If the concern of Bradford and Clark is ostensibly “child abuse”, then does that warrant allowing the state into the private lives of families (and the threat of removal of children into CYFS care — there’s an oxymoron) on the basis of hearsay evidence of smacking for correction?

    Answer: Of course not. This is an ideological bill aimed only at undermining parental authority, and transferring more power to the State. The aim is not smacking or correction — it’s goal is greater government influence in raising children.

    Link http://www.geekzone.co.nz/dmw/2549

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: