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/

Archive for the ‘CYFSWATCH Editorial’ Category

Former CYFSWATCH Host blocked from site.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 17, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Former CYFSWATCH Host blocked from site.
Monday, 14.05.2007, 09:06pm (GMT12)

FORMER HOST BLOCKED FROM SITE

 

Former CYFSwatch host kiwi1960 has found himself blocked from the site! “Gee, is this censorship or what?” he said, “I think this confirms what sort of democracy we live in”.  The other members of the CYFSWATCH GROUP still has access to the site, the only one affected seems to be the lone former host.

 

“I have four computers here, none could access the site, so its not malware, spyware or a virus, I reset the router, and still no joy. I then logged onto a proxy site and was able to access the CYFSWATCH site that way, so something is up!” he said. “I then contacted my ISP who couldn’t help and nor could XTRA. There is no reason why I cannot access the site, but given that our ‘dear leader’ controls the S.I.S. then anything is possible.”

 

This is also not the first time CYFS, MSD and Peter Hughes have resorted to their Department of Dirty Tricks (DDT) to silence me. They really do think I am CYFSwatch, but I’m not. It started when a social worker released part of my CYFS file to a reporter, and then when I had homosexual men arrive at my door from an online dating service, it seems someone has been pretending to be me. I’m not gay, and am not really offended by such things, so the only person they hurt was the ones turning up at my door, talk about being embarrassed!”

 

He went on to say “The sad thing about this is that I am not CYFSwatch!”

 

Is this where we are headed? A dictatorship survives by silencing its critics, and in recent times kiwi1960 has been very vocal about the actions of the Government. The bigger question is, is this a sign of the times? Will we get this more often now that its happened once? Are our freedoms slowly being eroded to protect the image of a corrupt Government and system?

 

Lets wait and see! I wonder if our “dear leader” will deny she had anything to do with this?


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

MSD Fails to “Do Right” by Abuse Claimants.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 17, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

MSD Fails to “Do Right” by Abuse Claimants.
Friday, 11.05.2007, 11:22pm (GMT12)

Ministry Fails to “Do Right” by Abuse Claimants

MEDIA RELEASE

11 MAY 2007: For immediate release

Ministry Fails to “Do Right” by Social Welfare Abuse Claimants

About 500 people are bringing claims against the Ministry of Social Development for historic physical, sexual and psychological abuse that they suffered as children while they were in the care of the former Department of Social Welfare and Division of Child Welfare. The issue was canvassed on TV3 and Campbell Live last night, in response to a Ministry of Social Development media release stating that the Ministry were committed to working through issues raised by mass claims of historic abuse of children in State care.

The lawyer for the claimant group, Sonja Cooper, said: “These claimants, who were just children at the time, suffered severe physical, sexual and psychological abuse at the hands of staff members in Social Welfare institutions around the country. They were repeatedly molested, raped and beaten. Children were also locked in solitary confinement cells and forced to do extreme physical training as punishment for misdemeanours such as smoking, fighting or running away from the institutions”. Ms Cooper stated that the claims relate to children placed with foster parents and in State-run institutions, such as the Epuni Boys’ Home, Fareham House, Hokio Beach School and Kohitere Boys’ Training Centre in Levin. Most of those institutions have now been closed.

Ms Cooper first won a case against Social Welfare in the High Court in 2000. This was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal by the Crown. Despite the Court of Appeal’s affirmation in 2003 that Social Welfare was liable for abuse perpetrated on children in State care, no claims have been settled by the current Government. The Ministry of Social Development has stated that it intends to “do right” by each claimant. However, to date, each and every claim is being vigorously and ruthlessly dragged through the Courts, taking many years and costing millions of taxpayer dollars.

Although most claims related to abuse perpetrated in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Ms Cooper has a growing number of clients under the age of 26 years old who were beaten and sexually assaulted in Youth Justice programmes run by CYFS as late as 2003. Ms Cooper stated: “These claims are not simply about one or two incidents of abuse. They cover wide-spread, systemic abuse on children who were in State care. Worse, when physical or sexual abuse was discovered, we have evidence that in a number of cases it was covered up by senior managers of Social Welfare in order to protect the reputation of the Department”.

“We do not believe that the Court is the best forum in which to hear these claims and that an out of Court process is the only fair and just way to addressing these claims” Ms Cooper stated.

“We have made numerous attempts to settle these claims without going to Court or to the media” Ms Cooper said. “However, the time has now come to make these claims public. The Government has repeatedly failed to adequately address these claims and has instead ordered that all MPs stay silent on the issue. The State has produced a generation of damaged people who have a myriad of difficulties with drug and alcohol abuse, anger management problems and difficulties parenting their own children. This Government has made a commitment to stamping out child abuse.

It must lead by example and address this long history of abusive conduct towards children in State care”.

The first trial relating to physical and sexual abuse in Epuni Boys’ Home and Hokio Beach School in the mid-1970’s begins in June. There are currently 155 claims filed in the High Court against the former Department of Social Welfare, with several hundred yet to be filed. Ms Cooper stated: “This is the biggest litigation ever to be initiated in New Zealand. Our Court system cannot cope with this number of claims and taxpayers should not be burdened with the cost of a massive number of trials. We call on the Government to act, and quickly”.

ENDS


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

Environmentalists, Greens want people to have less children.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 11, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Environmentalists, Greens want people to have less children.
Thursday, 10.05.2007, 11:39pm (GMT12)

Children ‘bad for planet’ says environmentalist group

Posted in: News, Politics

The London Times | May 07, 2007
Sarah-Kate Templeton

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

“The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

How Labour and Finance Minister Michael Cullen have been robbing kiwis.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 11, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

How Labour and Finance Minister Michael Cullen have been robbing kiwis.
Thursday, 10.05.2007, 08:29am (GMT12)

NZ vs Australia tax rates

The latest changes to the Australian tax rates now means that all Australians earning less than $250,000 pay less in tax than we do in NZ. And that’s before we even look at higher wages, and less indirect taxes.

taxrates.JPG

The table above shows how much tax Australians and NZers will be paying at each income level. Also what the effective average tax rate will be.

If you have an entry level job at $20K, Dr Cullen takes 18.2% off you, while Mr Costello will take only 6.8% giving you an extra $2,300 to spend.

At the average wage of $40K, Dr Cullen takes 20.2% and Mr Costello only 14.6%.

At $80K, Dr Cullen takes 28.1% to 22.3% for Costello. That’s an extra $4,000+.

Now let us look at what a Finance Minister who does not hate tax cuts can do over time.

taxrates2.JPG

Now remember in looking at the above table, that Australia has had far smaller surpluses as a % of GDP than NZ, yet have managed to cut taxes consistently.

Low income Aussies have had a 40% reduction in the tax they pay. Those on our average wage of $40,000 have had a massive 28% reduction in tax.

In fact everyone earning under $150,000 had has a 20% or greater reduction in tax.

NZ has had a golden opportunity to lower taxes over the last few years – at times when it would not have been inflationary and we had the second best best fiscal position in the world.

Thanks to Dr Cullen we have lost the opportunity to stay competitive with Australia, and to give hard working Kiwis some of their own money back.

web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 7, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’.
Monday, 07.05.2007, 01:17pm (GMT12)

How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights’.

By Lynette Burrows

 

 

This article is published by The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
New York, in the HUMAN LIFE REVIEW, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Spring 1999, pages 65 – 73. The article is reproduced here with the kind consent of the author.

Lynette Burrows is a well-known English educator and journalist. Her latest book, The Fight for the Family, was published in 1998, revised and reprinted in March 1999 by the Family Education Trust, Family Publications,
Oxford, England.

 

 

When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of ‘children’s rights’ is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.

Analysing the ‘loaded’ message of the title ‘children’s rights’ one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word ‘rights’. It is utterly bogus! A ‘right is classically defined as ‘the freedom to act without interference, according to one’s conscience.’ It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their ‘right’ and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children’s rights activists seek to remove.

One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don’t know anything about the American scene but, in
Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an ‘age of consent’ at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the ‘children’s rights’ lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active – there was nothing parents could do about it.

The right for children to ‘divorce’ unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children’s rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children – but that is consistent with the philosophy of children’s rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.

Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed ‘care’ of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her ‘right’ to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.

Thus, one can see by their aims and achievements, that the right to behave badly is second only to the right to premature sexual activity, according to the children’s rights agenda. Furtherance of this aim was massively enhanced by the successful campaign of one of the earliest children’s rights groups to get corporal punishment, of even the mildest kind, outlawed in schools. An unwary parliament passed this law by one vote, against a background of generally unproblematic discipline in schools. Certainly primary schools were little havens of tranquillity and learning for children in even the roughest areas. All this has gone now; together with thousands of good teachers who have fled a profession where harassment of them is the norm rather than the exception in many areas.

Children have, in other words, been given an amazing collection of liberties to behave badly, with absolutely no enforceable obligations to behave themselves or even to observe the law. On the other hand, their misdeeds are providing masses of highly paid work for the now enormous lobby of professionals who are parasitic on the new options available to children and the problems they bring. Any attempt to improve the behaviour of young people, is bound to run into opposition from these professionals since they are defending a financial interest that is dependent upon more of the same.

Another peculiarity of the rights, sought by activists for children, is how extremely limited and arbitrary they are. If these really were rights that any child could legitimately be supposed to need or to want, they would surely start with the right of a child to be born and not to be killed before birth. But all children’s rights activists support abortion in principle and in practice as if, in any circumstances, it could be considered in the unborn child’s best interest.

Then again, any child should surely have a right to enjoy a relationship with both their mother and their father; rather than being created by artificial insemination for the benefit of a lesbian couple. In all the arguments about this still highly contentious practice, and its rather more relevant, related topic, the ability of homosexuals to foster and adopt children, the children’s rights people have been ‘out to lunch’.

Another major area where a serious question of children’s rights are involved, is surely the right of children not to be bullied at school. Parents protest about it all the time, but little has been done to address their concerns because parents do not belong to well-funded organisations with direct access to the media. 70% of parents were found last year to want corporal punishment restored in school; and so too did 68% of schoolchildren.

The reason for this is, no doubt, because many children are in fact receiving punishment that is decidedly ‘corporal’ in school – but from bullying thugs rather than from lawful authority. The rights activists don’t address this subject because they are so busy monitoring schools for signs of homophobia, sexism or racism that they seem to have overlooked the much larger number of children who are simply terrified of the big boys.

Other areas deserving attention from those who could support parents in wanting the best for their children, would be having a flexible school leaving age and having the right to do work outside of school hours. Even more important, amongst the list of glaring omissions in the children’s rights agenda, is the care and protection of children who have been taken into council care.

The Social Services Inspectorate presented a report last year that pointed out just how badly children ‘in care’ are doing. Despite there being only 0.5% of children in local authority care, 22% of young men in prison and 39% of prisoners under 21 have been in care. One third of people sleeping rough in London have been in care and one quarter of children in care aged 14 or over, don’t go to school regularly. For some reason, referred to in the report but not explained, many of those who abscond from children’s homes, somehow disappear from local authority records thereafter.

When this report came out, there was much public discussion about this parlous state of affairs and many people commented on the lack of independent monitoring to safeguard vulnerable children. None that I saw, even thought to question the complete lack of involvement or interest in this scandal by the many, high-profile, publicly funded, children’s rights organisations. There are many areas of pressing need in relation to disadvantaged children, where parents with the best will in the world, simply have no power to get things done. Well-funded organisations with premises, facilities, telephones, full time staff and, above all, access to the media, could do so much of real value if they wanted to; but our current crop do not. So, one has to ask, what do they really want?

The answer to this must be that it is something ideological as well as something financial. The financial objective is fairly straight-foreward. It has provided a good many jobs and the children’s rights activists have certainly found themselves a career. My book, The Fight for the Family, (a second edition of which came out in March) started life as a commissioned chapter in a book about social affairs. I was given a researcher (American) and told to find out about the principle children’s rights groups; who formed them, who supported them and who paid for them.

Once we began, we found a scene so entirely different from what we had expected, that we became seriously interested and what had started out as a fairly hum-drum piece of research turned into a fascinating lesson in the modus operandi of pressure groups. It also ballooned into a small book.

For a start we discovered that all the principle groups concerned with this characteristically liberal/left version of children’s rights, groups were founded or co-founded by one man, and his domestic ‘partner’, mostly as limited companies. Their friends and colleagues over the years were spread amongst child care charities and government committees and one, or both, turned up on the boards of all eight of the principal organisations promoting their version of ‘children’s rights’. Their ideological orientation explained why the narrow agenda they pursued in every case was so similar. It also explained why the basic assumption was always that children needed to be ‘liberated’ from their parents care and control. Not having chosen to get married themselves, despite having children, it is fair to say that they have some rooted objection to marriage as an institution or, at least, believe that it is not important.

These groups have played an important part in promoting all the rights referred to above relating to premature sexual activity and behaving badly. One of the organisations was exclusively devoted to securing the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and, that having been achieved, its funds were transferred to another organisation, End Physical Punishment of Children, (EPOCH) which is the principle driving force behind attempts to get parental smacking of children criminalised.

The part of my book which really enraged rights activists, however, was not the discussion of their ideological bent, which they did not seem to dispute. It was the fact that attention was drawn to the similarity of their aims to those of the paedophile organisations of the 1970’s, which were prosecuted and suppressed in 1980.

As a matter of fact, the similarities are striking and, whilst I was not claiming that children’s rights activists were all paedophiles, it is nevertheless evident that their campaigns have been useful to those who want greater sexual access to children. ‘Unwitting’ was the word I used to describe the direct help given to paedophiles by the de facto abolition of the age of consent for girls in the matter of providing them with contraceptives at school. Now it is proposed to apply the same age of consent law to boys for homosexual activity, we will no doubt see its de facto abolition too.

However, it was after the book was sold out that the response to the publishers began to make another aspect of ‘children’s rights’ clear. It was always obvious that the welfare of children was very low on most of the activists’ agenda. Otherwise they would have been doing honest research to discover whether the freedoms advocated by them for children, were actually beneficial. They would also have been much more interested in whether breaking up families was the best response to anything but clear law-breaking on the part of parents, not to mention whether local authority care was better for children than a normal, even strict, home.

Now, like a voice from beyond the grave, we suddenly heard that Sweden had, at long last, developed a protest movement against the things that were being done to them in the name of children’s rights. I don’t know if it is the same in America, but here and in Europe, Sweden has always been held up as a paragon of ‘progressive’ innovation. It is referred to in reverential tones by liberals everywhere and children’s rights activists place particular emphasis on the beneficial effects of their 1979 law which forbade parents to smack their children. According to their literature, no parents have ever been imprisoned or otherwise penalised for having laid a hand on their children and there is no cause for concern anywhere.

Well, it isn’t true! An organisation of academics, lawyers, doctors and other professionals have formed ‘The Nordic Committee for Human Rights’, which is principally concerned with human rights abuses in Sweden, the most powerful and influential of the Nordic nations. They have a website (NKMR.org) where you can read all about it in English. They point out several crucial, historical factors. Notably that the Nazi’s copied a good deal of their social policy from the Swedes; particularly that part of it which saw children as belonging to ‘the parental state’ rather than to its parents. The family too was viewed with dislike since it encouraged thoughts and actions that were not prescribed by the state.

Unmarried mothers had their babies automatically taken away from them and an organisation called ‘Save the Children’ was begun during the 1930’s in Sweden, which was, contrary to expectation, profoundly anti-family. What children had to be ‘saved’ from, were the imperfections of their natural parents and the oppressive and un-enlightened atmosphere of a normal family. That has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?

They were also very enamoured of eugenics and the idea of a perfect racial type. Unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Swedish government pursued a policy of forced sterilisation of children it thought came from poor stock, until 1976. What a surprise for liberals everywhere when the fact came out, only last year, that more than 60,000 children had, in that way, been cleansed of their ability to procreate .

Few people had any idea that the Swedish government had the power to maintain such secrecy when it also had a relatively free press. One can hazard a guess that the truth only emerged finally because a couple of sad individuals, who had been deprived of their birthright by being sterilised when they were children in care, sued the government for compensation for what was done for them. Victims have now been promised the princely sum of £7,000 apiece.

The Nordic Committee, under its energetic and fearless chairman Ruby Harrold-Claesson, has at last broken open many of the other half-truths that the Swedish authorities are still putting about. She is a lawyer – incidentally, the only black one in Sweden – and has dredged up a lot of the figures relating to the seizure of children by the authorities. These are difficult to obtain because they are not recorded in the normal, criminal courts. Hence the ability of the children’s rights people to claim that there have been no prosecutions under the 1979 law. Children are taken away under the auspices of an administrative court which, in the public interest, of course, keeps the figures safely out of reach of most people.

To give you an idea of the scale of the tyranny over the family, it is necessary to describe the context. Sweden has a population of eight million; it is also extremely homogenous as to race and no people in Europe are more clearly identifiable by their appearance alone. It has virtually no poverty, wall to wall welfare and no large cities. The capital city has a population of less than two million and the second city has one hundred and fifty thousand people. There should be, in fact, very few cases where children need to be taken from their parents. Yet, in 1981 the authorities seized 22,000 children; which represents a rate of seizure 86 times greater than that of West Germany. An equivalent figure for America would be, by that reckoning, more than 687 thousand – in one year!

No doubt the authorities had such a field day because of the number of children who had been smacked by their parents before the 1979 Act came in. The figure fell somewhat after that but, in 1995, it was 14,700 children removed from their homes. That is a rate 57 times that of Germany and, in American terms, would be nearly 500 thousand children. A mind-boggling number for the rest of the world to contemplate and a clear explanation why so few people in Sweden either get married or have children.

Yet why is this so little known? From time to time there is brief publicity of the abuses of Sweden, before liberals return to their uncritical admiration of it. Unfortunately for the oppressed everywhere, the liberal/left always treasures its heroes – even when they are murderous tyrants – so it will take some time, and a lot of repetition, for the truth to rise to the surface.

Another stalwart of the Nordic Committee, Siv Westerberg, has taken eight cases to the Court of Human rights at Strasborg, and has won seven times. The Readers Digest featured one of her cases in 1993. It involved three children who were abducted by the authorities whilst they were at school. They were sent to separate families 600 miles away and it took the parents 5 months even to find out where they were. No specific reason was ever given for why they had been taken; just that it was in their ‘best interest’. It took seven years before the parents were able to get their case to the European Court, which found in their favour. The parents were awarded £33,000 compensation and the Swedish authorities were told to return the children to their parents. The eldest, who was then 17, was allowed home but the other two were not. This is the system that we are being asked to admire and follow!

By a striking coincidence, on the very day the organisation that published my book held a conference to discuss its findings, the BBC asked to do an interview with me about the smacking debate. Since I was tied up with the conference, they decided to interview me in a side room during the lunch break and, accordingly sent an interviewer and crew. I took the opportunity to introduce them to Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who was one of the principle speakers at the conference and she gave them a brief run-down of what she was saying about Sweden.

The team looked uncomfortable and, when I suggested that they include an interview with her to beef-up the debate, they said they already had been to Sweden and would be including an account of things there, as part of the programme.

When we watched the programme a few days later, sure enough, there they were in Sweden interviewing a handful of schoolchildren who confirmed that their parents were not allowed to smack them. They then asked a senior official about whether many children had been taken from their families as a result of the anti-smacking law. Laughing uproariously, she waved her hand around her, ‘Can you see many children being taken?’ she said. And that was supposed to be a sufficient answer.

After this, the missing brick fell into place! The question was always, why are the children’s rights people so concerned to make the parental right to smack their children illegal? Most of their organisations have been more or less devoted to the subject despite the fact that 90% of good and caring parents say that it is necessary at times. Now the answer is clear.

It is a device which places most parents in the power of social workers. They are, by training and tradition, marxist, feminist, and anti-religious. They don’t much care for the family and lend their weight on every possible occasion to arguments and devices that show it in a bad light. In this country, they are still opposed to the inclusion, in official statistics, of figures which show the precise nature of the relationship of abusers to the children they abuse. At present, they are simply called ‘fathers’, even though they are seldom genetic fathers and, even more seldom, genetic fathers actually married to the mother of their children. The traditional family is still the safest place for any child to be – but you would not know it from official literature on the subject.

Thus, anybody who wanted to further a marxist, feminist agenda, could not do better than to have most families in thrall to social workers. The right to browbeat parents because they smack their children when they think it necessary, as the Bible tells them they must, would be all an officious bureaucracy needed to infantalise the majority of adults. It is not about the elevation of children’s rights at all. It is about the crushing of adult ones.

It is a particularly crafty bandwagon to set on the road because it has drawn support from so many unpleasant but powerful allies. Contraceptive-selling commerce has welcomed and supported them; paedophiles love them; and as for those government employees engaged in the job of directing, but not curbing, the rising tide of young people in trouble – they simply could not do without them.

Baby-snatching, as it has always been called, is almost bound to be due for a make-over in the years to come. There has been in increase in infertility amongst the young that would be considered alarming if we were not still so fixated with the idea of over-population; plus the fact that the ‘wrong’ sort of people are still having babies, particularly out of wedlock. This rise must be due, at least in part, to the powerful steroids being given to young girls to ensure their continuance as sexually active people. Also because of the extraordinary increase in the sexually transmitted diseases which cause barrenness in women and sterility in men.

Evils have a habit of happening one upon the other and it is an ironic observation made by the Nordic Committee for Human rights, that one of the reasons it is so easy to find foster-carers for the thousands of ‘snatched’ children in
Sweden, is a political one. Successive social policy makers have scorned the role of wife and mother for many years. A woman loses all child benefits if she refuses to place her children in a crèche and she would feel very vulnerable to having them taken away too. Unless of course she had a very well-paid job to do there – looking after other people’s stolen children.

It is incongruous, isn’t it? To build your home on the ruins of someone else’s. No wonder Scandinavian dramatists at the turn of the century were always so gloomy; they must have sensed what was coming.

The Fight for the Family

Back to Article Index


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

Smack the gangs.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 7, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Smack the gangs.
Sunday, 06.05.2007, 07:41pm (GMT12)

I saw on STUFF today that a 2 year old baby was shot dead in a drive by shooting in Wanganui last night. It was gang related, Black Power members fighting among themselves. No doubt Dimwit Sue will suggest that her stupid bill will prevent such tragedies from happening in the future but we all know that would just be another lie. The fact is, this is a BIGGER problem than anything
Bradford’s idiotic bill will address, and more than likely MP’s will *again* ignore the REAL issues facing our nation.
 These MP’s are living in their own ivory castle and don’t know what the real issues are facing our nation; the only time they will come out of their castles is at election time. Then they will lie to us again, Clark will tell us how wonderful she is and what a great job her lame duck Government has done for the families of New Zealand, putting more money into the pockets of parents. The fact is, this is one way she can “own” the people, one way she can “tell” the people what’s good for them, such as the anti smacking bill which the people do not want. What the people want NOW is this stupid
Bradford bill dropped, and buried for ever and a day. What the people want NOW is action against the gangs which are running amok in our communities, stealing from us, raping the elderly and blowing themselves up in “P” labs.
 The recent “P” lab explosion is hot on the heels of Police search warrants being executed on gang houses which netted stolen goods, drugs and weapons. In fact, it was disclosed that a young child was lying on a pillow which was concealing a loaded handgun. There’s your job Bradford, DO something about the gangs, DROP your stupid bill which no one wants and get a new bill in outlawing gangs and making it easier for the Police to crack down on the gangs… do that, and you will actually find 80% of the people 100% behind you, for a change, rather than against you. I say to
Bradford, why not do this and protect the likes of that two year old in Wanganui that was killed. You say you CARE about our Children, which is strange because you are going to turn all parents into criminals, BUT, you allow CRIMINALS who happen to be parents to lie next to loaded handguns.
 Helen and Sue, and now, even John Keys, climb down OUT of your ivory castle and spend some time in the real world.  The only thing you are doing is making everyone say its high time Politicians were shot. The people have lost faith in you, but because you are in your castle, immune from the real world, it would be pointless asking for an early election. The people have lost faith in our… correction, YOUR democracy. When you don’t listen, then it’s a dictatorship. kiwi1960


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

Bradford and Clark MISLED Parliament and the people.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 7, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford and Clark MISLED Parliament and the people.
Friday, 04.05.2007, 10:51pm (GMT12)

Bradford and
Clark MISLED Parliament and the people.
 

by kiwi1960

 On the “Breakfast” TV show this morning, the Police Association person said that the Police welcome this amendment from
Clark and Keys because it now gives the Police the option NOT to charge anyone.
 He went on to say that the zero tolerance policy to family violence would have meant that the Police would have been forced to make an arrest. Now, that will not happen. Did Bradford and Clark not say in the house that no parent would be charged/arrested/criminalised with the repeal of the S59 law? I am now calling for Bradford and Clark to say sorry to the people of
New Zealand for misleading them, and they should face the house privileges committee for having told lies in the house.
 Those MPs that also used the speed limit analogy should also be ashamed to have used it, yes, if you speed, you wont be arrested but as it turns out, you would have been. Being arrested for speeding (provided you’re not drunk) wont ever have happened, but being arrested for lightly smacking your child WOULD, given the zero tolerance for family violence. From day one,
Bradford has lied to the people, called it hysteria or that people didn’t understand her bill, well, the people did understand it.
Bradford should resign NOW and then apologise to the people.
 
Clark has always misled the people, from paintergate to this sorry episode, she has proven herself unfit to lead a nation. John Keys has deserted the 80% of the people that would have voted National at the next election if only to have this stupid law repealed, but now he is a party to it, who do these people turn to now? Shame on him. On Closeup last night, Simon Barnet was the ONLY decent person being interviewed. He said it like it was, and the people respect that. What we got from the MPs was fluff and waffle. When Simon asked
Bradford if she would resign if one parent was arrested for lightly smacking a child, she just sat there with a stupid smirk on her stupid face.
 
Clark has to rescue her with waffle, no answer was given. This is another case of MPs not wanting to take responsibility for their own stupid laws. 
Bradford must have known from day one that parents would, at the very least, been at very great risk of being arrested and/or facing a CYFS investigation. The fact that she lied from day one is proof that this person shouldn’t be elected… …Wait a minute, she WASN’T elected by the people. She is a list MP, meaning that the people voted for the party and the party elected her based on her list position.  It used to be said that if you didn’t like the MP, you could vote them out, not anymore, not when we have MMP. So if list MPs are not elected by the people, but by the party, then they represent the party and not the people, makes sense right.Therefore, as they don’t represent the people, and are only there to make up the numbers, then they should be allowed to vote, but NOT introduce any bills into the house.  If they cannot be elected outright, and get in on the “party” ticket, then they are second class MPs and shouldn’t have any rights to have laws passed, because if the voters did have any faith in Bradford, then they would have elected her. As she wasn’t elected because the voters had no faith in her, or didn’t trust her, then why should be that list MP pretend they have the people on their side and introduce a bill into the house? Bradford answers to no one (except her party) so she gets this stupid bill into the house and when 80% of the people are opposed to it, then she can ignore them because she doesn’t represent those people, only the party. What point is their in voting when stupid MPs get in by the party list? What point is there in voting for the other guy when the one you want out is in anyhow by the backdoor? MMP needs to be overhauled so we do not have to suffer the likes of
Bradford ever again, if they don’t fix the system, then don’t vote, or if you do vote, don’t vote for any party.
 In the meantime, Bradford and Clark have a
LOT of explaining to do and apologies to make.
 The only decent person worth voting for is Simon Barnet. Please phone his radio show and beg him to stand. If anyone can post details about how to get hold of him, I suggest we all email him our support if he decides to stand.  SIMON FOR PM!


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | 3 Comments »

Family Integrity Press Release: National Surrenders to Bradford and Labour.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 2, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Family Integrity Press Release: National Surrenders to Bradford and Labour.
Wednesday, 02.05.2007, 01:00pm (GMT12)

Wednesday, 2 May 2007 11:48 a.m.

Subject: Family Integrity #237 — Surrender by National

It is all over folks.

John Key and Helen Clark have agreed to amend Bradford’s Bill with the following:

To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against parents of any child, or those standing in place of any child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in pursuing a prosecution.

Bradford agrees with the amendment, because, as she just said on Michael Law’s radio show, it doesn’t change her bill in any way whatsoever.

Why is this true?

This amendment is simply adding this as an extra clause to the Bill. It is not changing the re-write of Section 59 which is another clause in the Bill. So, the clause will not pass into the Crimes Act. It is simply a bit of commentary in the Bill. And as Bradford just said on Law’s radio show, this is precisely what Police do now anyway.

And of course, parents who use reasonable force to correct their children do not use inconsequential force…..they use force that is going to have consequences….the consequence of present and future corrected behaviour. Police will have to consider this a criminal act.

And of course, CYFS is most likely still to be advised by police, even when the force is inconsequential, for the force is technically illegal. Here is where our greatest fear lies.

This is total and complete capitulation by National. They’ve surrendered completely.

May God have mercy on us all.

Here then, unless there is some miraculous event in Parliament today, is what Section 59 will look like :

Parental Control

(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of —

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disuptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

 

 

 

Correcting your children, you see in (2), is a criminal offense. And (3) says that if there is a doubt as to whether the force was for correction or for prevention, the correction interpretation must prevail.

Until now, juries convict the accused of a crime when no doubt about it exists, when it is beyond reasonable doubt. Now, if charged with the crime of using force to correct your child, the existence of doubt will legally require the jury to convict you of the crime.

This Bill is totalitarian in the way it thoroughly removes parental authority to determine the upbringing of their children, for they are unable to use force, even reasonable force, to back up their parental requirements and prohibitions. If Police could not use any force to back up state prohibitions, they would be reduced to making suggestions which we could safely ignore. Children will be able to safely ignore what parents say.

This Bill signals the tipping of NZ into the cauldron of totalitarianism in that the politicians, across all parties, have totally ignored the clear will of the populace.

Ring John Key’s office and tell National how stunned you are at their total surrender to Labour and the Greens.

John’s Wellington office: (04) 471 9307

His Auckland office: (09) 412 2496

 

Regards,

 

Craig Smith

National Director

Family Integrity

PO Box 9064

Palmerston North

New Zealand

Ph: (06) 357-4399

Fax: (06) 357-4389

Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz

http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz 

http://familyintegrity.blogspot.com/

Our Home….Our Castle

 

if Section59 is repealed – or replaced…
YOU CAN KISS YOUR CHILDREN GOODBYE.

http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Brochure_-_Kiss_Children_Goodbye_7.pdf

 



web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 2, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support.
Tuesday, 01.05.2007, 08:52pm (GMT12)

www.spcs.org.nz

Cracks Widen in ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill Support

MPs must relegate Bradford’s bill to the trash can if parents cannot be assured in the legislation that its purpose is NOT to have parents and those in the place of parents charged with an assault on a child for applying a smack with “reasonable force” for the purpose of “correction”. Bradford and the Prime Minister Helen Clark are expecting the public to believe their word that they will not be charged and prosecuted because “police will use their discretion” and will not charge them following formal complaints for smacking. That’s not good enough for the vast majority of thinking New Zealand parents. As the Dominion Post editorial points out today: “opponents of her [Bradford’s] legislation are entitled to take at face value the provision that states nothing in the exemptions of the legislation “justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction”. That, however, much she may deny it, is a ban on what people would regard as smacking.” (1 May, B4).

 

The traffic speeding analogy is often used by Bradford’s supporters to support their claim that the police will not prosecute parents who continue to smack their kids for correction, in the same way that police have discretion in whether they criminalise a speeding motorist. Katherine Rich, spokesperson for Education no less, has relied on this poor analogy to defend the bill that no one else in her caucus is supporting. She used this flawed analogy in the weekend:

 

“Many extreme – and public – cases of child abuse involved parents who thought they were using appropriate force, said Rich. The repeal of Section 59 would send a message that using physical force against children was not appropriate.

 

“Criminalising is such an emotive word. If you drive at 101km/h, that doesn’t make you a criminal. But if you drive at 140km/h, then it’s far more clear-cut.” (NZ Herald 29 April).

 

Rich falsely claims that police officers deciding whether to investigate and lay charges for a reported smacking incident will be in the same position as traffic officers have who make decisions based on discretion whether or not to lay a criminal charge for speeding, rather than just issuing an infringement notice. This is a false analogy.

 

The police cannot only lay a criminal charge once a driver is recorded as having exceeded any given speed limit by 40 kms/hr or more. An automatic 28-day suspension of the driving licence is applied and the driver faces a criminal charge in Court. At sentencing there will be a minimum further disqualification of the licence of 3 months and furthermore, the possibility of a fine and/or imprisonment.

 

Police cannot lay criminal charges for speeding when a vehicle is driven at less than 40 km/hr over the speed limit so have no discretion in such cases. Such a charge can only be laid if other aspects of the law are broken ( e.g. dangerous driving).

 

Motorists will generally incur a fine and demerit points for speeds between 111 and 140 kms/hr. Again, there is no discretion to lay criminal charges unless there are other factors involved (proximity to schools, careless driving etc.).

The only area under current policy where discretion on the part of police can apply for cars is where speeds of up to 11 kms/hr over the speed limit are recorded. In issuing a warning, rather than an infringement notice (fine) in such circumstances, the police are NOT suggesting that the action of the driver is reasonable or acceptable of lawful. Quite the opposite. ALL SPEEDNG IS AGAINST THE LAW. It constitutes either a traffic offence or a criminal offence. There is no justification offered in law for a member of the public to travel at over 140 kms/hr and escape conviction and no provision in law informing them that it is lawful to exceed 100 kms/hr.

 

The police authorities have confirmed that all formal complaints of smacking for correction will have to be treated as potential criminal offences (domestic violence) and will require thorough investigation (police statements from witnesses, victim and child abusing parents to be recorded and the collecting of medical evidence that may need to be submitted at a deposition hearing etc.). If the law’s purpose as stated is “abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction” the police will have to be vigilant in exterminating the last vestige of any smacking culture in New Zealand by using the full force of the law. Good parents who break the rules against smacking will need to have the force of the law applied to make them comply.

 

Bradford and Clark know full well that that the effect of Bradford’s bill is to make all forms of force used by parents for correction, illegal. Parents have a right to know if their actions constitute an offence in law, just as drivers have a right to have speed limits regularly notified to them by way of traffic signs, and made clearly visible from the driving lane. If the Ministry of Transport is not prepared to inform drivers by proper signs, then it has no right to prosecute drivers for breaking speed limits known only to the authorities! Failure to do so means in practice that drivers cannot be convicted.

 

Parents have a right to know in law what level of force, if any, can be used for “correction”. In the existing law s. 59 sets the limit: “reasonable force in the circumstances”. This is perfectly fine. However, if that provision is removed then they potentially face prosecution for using ANY level of force. Bradford argues that no limit needs to be set because police will not be enforcing charges against minor force such as smacking, even though her law declares such actions illegal and need to be abolished. She is relying on some sort of de facto law that the police will come up with to set limits of force. This is a nonsense law.

 

If the term “reasonable care” meant nothing drivers could never be prosecuted for reckless driving. Unreasonable care involves placing the driver or passengers and others or in danger etc. Ironically the term “reasonable force” is a term Bradford has still retained to provide limits for use of force in the four exemptions under section (1).

 

The boundary between reasonable and unreasonable use of force is determined by the police before laying charges for assault under the existing section 59, taking into account the facts of the case and the circumstances involved in the domestic discipline etc. The amended Bradford bill recognises that such boundaries do exist and can be defined with respect to force used in the four situations covered in section 1 (a-d). However, it is the view of the bill’s proponents that no force is reasonable when used for correction and this is enshrined in the bill by the specific removal of the existing defence applying to force for correction. Its removal, for the first time, makes all forms of smacking for correction illegal.

 

Under Bradford’s bill all use of reasonable force for correction, including smacking, becomes a criminal offence. The law does not have a special provision for light smacks – worthy only of a mere traffic infringement notice (to use the flawed analogy she relies on). That there is no lesser category for “light smacks” comparable to traffic infringements proves that the purpose of the bill is to abolish ALL use of force for correction.

If Bradford’s bill becomes law she knows that one of its effects will be to make it legal to use reasonable force on a child to minimise harm (s. 1a). Why would it be legal one might ask? Because under the new law there would be a specific justification for the use of reasonable force in such circumstances (“…every parent…. Is justified….”).

 

But the same justification exists in current law for the use of such force for correction – including smacking. And yet Bradford and Clark have repeatedly claimed publicly that under current law lightly smacking a child for correction is illegal. When asked why it is illegal they respond: Because any form of smack applied for any reason constitutes an “assault” under s. 2 of the Crimes Act (1961)? This statement is false. In the above example involving harm minimisation (s. 1 a) Bradford affirms that the force is used legally, but then contradicts herself when considering force used for correction under current law. The same justifications are used which mean that the actions are legal.

 

END

web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »

Stuff article on CYFSWATCH – and CYFSWATCH website hosts reply.

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 21, 2007

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Stuff article on CYFSWATCH – and CYFSWATCH website hosts reply.
Friday, 20.04.2007, 10:59pm (GMT12)

 

Been there, shamed the social worker, bought the t-shirt

NZPA | Thursday, 19 April 2007

 

You can name and shame social workers on the internet and soon you’ll be able to buy the T-shirt too.

 

The blog site “cyfswatch” attracts posts from people wanting to name and shame social workers, publish the addresses of members of parliament, and tell their tales of trouble with the social service Child, Youth and Family.

Now, the site is branching out.

In a post today, site host kiwi1960 – otherwise known as Masterton man Henk Van Helmond – says the website is moving and will be shortly relaunched.

“A new site will also appear offering people hosting services as well as cfyswatch merchandise, such as tee shirts protesting the smacking ban bill and other things along this line.”

In a case of blogging the blogger, Mr Van Helmond last month found his own name and address posted on the site.

Despite saying he was not worried about it, that post now appears to have been removed.

After an initial burst of activity, the last entry in the “Hall of Shame” on the site was nearly three weeks ago, against two Christchurch social workers.

Mr Van Helmond took up hosting the site after internet giant Google pulled the plug when a posting threatened Green MP Sue Bradford over her parliamentary bid to remove the so-called section 59 legal defence for parents to physically discipline their children.

 

Reply from Kiwi1960:

 

Open Letter to the Stuff.co.nz reporter!

You article misrepresents the truth, just as your previous article did about this website.

No one “outed” me, I named myself to my local News Paper and the story was carried by many other media outlets. It seems you are the only one not to know this. This was before you saw the comment which you claim “outed me”. Are you so ignorant that you don’t keep up with your fellow reporters?

Secondly, the comment left by Claude Balls when he thought he had “outed” me is still on this site, the fact that you couldn’t find it means you didn’t look very hard.

The slow down in number of name and shame posts proves one thing, that because the Government refuses to investigate what has been posted so far tells people there’s no point telling their story. Why doesn’t the media publish some of these stories and try to force action on obtaining an investigation?

In fact, why don’t YOU post some of the stories? You can take out the names and it would still have impact, is it that this site has more balls than the mainstream media? Or is it because the Government has warned you off any such move? This must mean I’m willing to make a stand while you ignore the pain created by CYFS.

I’d like to see you publish a story, if you have the guts, on the cowardly media bowing to Government pressure; you don’t even have the balls to publish the sites URL.

So many times lately, the media that has contacted me has said this site is needed, but they won’t really get involved because they fear legal action from Peter Hughes if they do. If you were fair, you would mention that instead of doing Peter Hughes dirty work for him. But rather than support the people of New Zealand who have suffered at the hand of CYFS, you find comfort in the knowledge that by attacking me with half truths you earn brownie points.

Everyone remembers what Helen Clark said, that the media must wake up to the fact they if they publish anything they don’t like, then they wont get the interviews with the Ministers. Right?

Which Minister are you hoping to interview when you have earned enough brownie points with Clark?

In the meantime, while you cower in your little hidey hole, I am at work with National Party MPs who want to force a full investigation into CYFS, the MSD and the THOUSANDS of complaints which they have covered up because they investigated all complaints themselves.

I am working for these people for FREE, while you get paid a wage to post half truths, blood money to earn brownie points with Labour. Well, enjoy it while it lasts, labour wont be re-elected next year, everyone knows that.

kiwi1960


web metrics

Posted in CYFSWATCH Editorial | Leave a Comment »