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

Archive for the ‘WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry’ Category


Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on May 14, 2007

Jay writes

Hi watchingcyfs,
Could you post this for me please.


What a load. I read What Hughes said.
Who can afford to take claims to High Court. Cyfs are backing ratbags who are causing the horrors.
This happened to Aborigines in 50’s & 60’s. Aussises got hammered over this.

Your new shit for brains review! Same dipsticks who cocked up this Cyfs Act
20 yrs of horror latter your dept asks these bozos to look at it again, and say you will look at changes, but not likely to change anything. You are full of it. How bloody dumb do you think we are? As stupid as you lot?

Did you bother to ask parents what changes are needed? Nah, you go and ask the twits who screwed it up in the first place. Dyson gets a scwiz then the unwashed etc have their say.

We should take you to Fair Go.

WHAT WAS CYFS ANSWER… Folks: it is all being put on the Net in sites like this. The TERM IS: CYFS HORROR STORIES.

Cyfs may guess who wrote this, I do not give a stuff, Screw them!


Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | 15 Comments »

Machiavelli – Alive And Well In New Zealand’s Parliament

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 29, 2007

Source: Reformation Testimony

Machiavelli – Alive And Well In New Zealand’s Parliament

One writer has described the political theory of an infamous figure in history in this way: The theorist’s thought ‘reveals the bankruptcy of …political life but also of apostate political science which seeks to describe the facts of man’s political life without reference to the divine order of God’s creation and of universally applicable Christian moral standards’. If this reminds you of Helen Clark or Sue Bradford or a myriad of other modern politicians, you would be both right and wrong. The person in question is Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, the sixteenth-century Florentine philosopher, musician, playwright and poet. Machiavelli, whose name has become synonymous with hypocrisy and manipulative behaviour, was a secularist who described in a celebrated book ‘The Prince’ (Il Principe) what he believed to be the most successful politicians. His book was not about lofty ideals of social life but about the need to use both power and prudence to rule a state. Thus as the consummate pragmatist, he taught that it was lawful to use evil means to achieve and maintain governance of the state.

His political theory was at once a rejection of the idea that good politicians could govern a state with the ideals of the Creator and Redeemer; and the justification for the emergence of the secular politician and state. Indeed Machiavelli would have applauded the Fabian socialism of the New Zealand Labour government and their aged-hippy sidekicks the socialist Greens.

Machiavelli died ten years after that landmark in modern history of 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 theses to the old church door at Wittenberg in Germany, ushering in the Protestant Reformation which was about to turn the world upside down.

While Machiavelli had written to both justify and condemn the evil machinations and hypocrisy of Italian papal dominated states he did not eschew religion, and some even argue that he believed the ruler should maintain and encourage religion. For this reason there are those who claim that Machiavelli was not in favour of secularism or a secular state, but that would be a simplistic conclusion. Yes, he believed a ruler should use his power to preserve the true religion which he understood to be Roman Catholicism, but the sum effect of this belief would inevitably be moral reductionism. Since the Prince could use evil means to achieve his end of a stable state, he could quite justifiably manipulate religion and its ethical system. This makes religion a wax nose.

This is precisely what we see in modern Western  states, including New Zealand. The present Labour government maintains and supports a form of Machiavellian public religion. Religion can be manipulated for the benefit of the secular state. This is demonstrated in the New Zealand government’s recent sponsorship of a multi-faith series of conferences which are mandated to furnish a common multi-faith statement of religious tolerance. The Labour government has no qualms in asserting that all religions are equal with the exception of Christianity. No the true religion must not be allowed to assert God’s intolerance of idolatry. But a phoney Christianity heralded by insipid and theologically liberal Anglicans together with Maori pagan witchdoctors perform the official “blessing” ceremonies of state buildings and national rituals.

These Politicians use theologically liberal “Christian” teachers to claim that Christianity supports the state’s decisions on legalising abortion, homosexuality, prostitution and the anti-parent, anti-smacking bill currently before the House.

It was no surprise that New Zealand’s best known heretic, Presbyterian theologian Lloyd Geering, who infamously denied the resurrection and just about every other tenet of Christianity, was elevated to the highest honour which can bestowed by the government on any New Zealander. Birds of a feather flock together.

But Machiavellian pragmatism is also seen in the personal ethics of individual politicians. The New Zealand Prime Minister illustrated this point when she signed a number of paintings which were painted by other artists. Her justification for this fraudulent activity was that the paintings were going to be sold for charity. Or take the case of election spending. The present Labour government wrongly spent $800,000 of the   taxpayer’s money to publicise their policies at the time of the last general election. Having been caught out, Labour has not admitted wrongdoing with any candour; nor have resignations been tendered, as they should have been.

Instead this same party proposed that there be a new way of funding political party election costs. Yes, they proposed that instead of private fundraising, the taxpayer would pay. Furthermore, Parliament is populated by politicians and cabinet ministers who have broken the law, including drink-driving,  performed penance outside of cabinet, and then been welcomed back into the executive. Political pragmatism, secularism, unethical and plain illegal behaviour are a reality in the modern New Zealand nation state. Machiavelli would have applauded this abuse of power and raw manipulation of religious ethics for the goal of a ‘stable state’. Let us also not forget that this anti-smacking anti-parenting bill will be passed for one reason only, and that is because Labour is whipping its caucus, denying them a conscience vote. Why are they doing this? Because they have a backroom deal with the Greens who have introduced this bill. The Greens have promised to protect the minority Labour government against votes of no-confidence as long as Labour supports its legislative programme. This is pure Machiavelli.

Let me reiterate what I have said and written many times. New Zealand is in the grip of a spiritual battle, and unless ordinary New Zealanders wake up their ideas, our decline into a crime-ridden, festering hell-hole of the South Pacific will continue apace. We can see no way out of the present social decline as evil and perverted people grab for power, aided and abetted by the New Zealander voter who put them there. Only a genuine repentance before God and a submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as King, will avert further social disasters.  

Christians too need to wake up. The government is also maintained by those who vote for them, and many who claim to be Christ’s worshippers willingly vote for Christ-deniers.

Garnet Milne

web metrics

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »

Who is winning?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 19, 2007

Source: Reformation Testimony

The anti-smacking debate: Who is winning?

There is little question in my mind that the neo-pagans will succeed in banning smacking and criminalising parents who want to be consistent with the teaching of the Bible and bring up their children in a God-honouring way. There is the faint hope that the legislation will not survive the select committee and voting process without some changes to make it more palatable for concerned parents, but I would not hold my breath.

With people like Child commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro linking infanticide and other child abuse to the “section 59” defence which protects parents from being charged with a crime when they use reasonable force to discipline their children, we know that reason will not win the argument with the secularist totalitarians who control our government. Rationality has never been a strong point of our feminist neo-pagan rulers.

We have seen Green MP Sue Bradford pushing false figures of Swedish child abuse and murder in order to deflect the actual evidence that the Swedish experiment to ban smacking by parents has not worked in reducing child abuse. And we have seen the same Sue Bradford claim that her bill will not prevent a parent smacking a child. At the same time she has to admit that a parent who uses force against a child will still be committing an assault, so we know that her attempts to alleviate fears that parents will be criminalised have no substance whatsoever.

We have seen the media and the anti-family anti-smacking lobby ridiculing a Christian pamphlet on parental discipline. A lie has been repeated that this pamphlet recommends that children be beaten for up to 15 minutes at a time. The Christian pamphlet says nothing of the sort. And we have seen Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a Swedish lawyer who opposes anti-smacking laws, ridiculed and treated with disdain in the media in her recent trip to New Zealand [go here for recorded interviews with Mrs Harrold-Claesson].

It is possible that political pragmatism will force a rethink for the Labour/Green coterie who are endeavouring to force through this attack on Christian values, but it is such an important plank in the religion of the neo-pagans that it is difficult to see them compromising except under the most pressing of circumstances. There are strong voices for the criminalising of parents who smack their children in National, the main opposition party, which means that National is hardly going to vote against the legislation as a party. Katherine Rich and other vocal advocates of this anti-family proposed legislation will make sure that the vote becomes a “conscience” vote [as an aside it is intriguing that our politicians apparently only vote according to their conscience on rare occasions].

Unless Labour can foresee themselves losing power if they help push through this anti-smacking bill, they will back it to the hilt. After all it is a policy which is consistent with their broad totalitarian aims to take all authority away from fathers, then parents and give it to a state dominated by homosexuals and feminists. This is all part of the feminist revolution. After all, we cannot have fathers taking the responsibility for disciplining their children according to biblical precepts – that would be to reinforce patriarchalism, the traditional family and the ethics of the Divine law-giver. This neo-pagan government wants instead to see the strategies of Satan entrenched in law, and the laws of God overthrown.

Garnet Milne PhD

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »

Christian Love, Kinky Sex?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 19, 2007

Source: Reformation Testimony

Christian Love interpreted as Kinky Sex

Sue Bradford’s extraordinary slander of good Christian men and women who love their children enough to discipline them

Garnet Milne

All MPs must now sit up and take notice of the mindset of the socialist neo-pagan Mrs Sue Bradford, the ubiquitous promoter of the criminalization of parents who smack their children. Is she just getting desperate as the vote for her anti-family, anti-smacking bill approaches, or does she really believe that parents who want to discipline their children according to biblical principles are really sadomasochists in disguise?  I think the answer must be all of the above. In a lecture given to MAP – the Movement for Alternatives to Prison – on Thursday the fifth of October in Auckland, Sue Bradford asserted the most extraordinary claim I have heard coming from a neo-pagan in a long time. This is what she said:

Before I leave the psychological aspect of this debate, there is one other matter that I think underpins some of what is going on here. It has been hard to talk about in Select Committee, and in public, because of its very nature, although a few submitters have raised it. This is the question of the connection between sexual perversion and the beating of children and young people. Very few of us want to acknowledge it up front, but in fact the more I’ve been immersed in this issue, and the more I’ve heard groups predominantly made up of men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat children, and in some cases talking or writing about the right methods of administering the rod and so on, the closer the unspoken connection gets. This is accentuated by literature put out by groups like Carey College and Tyndale Park Christian Schools in Auckland, and by Family Integrity’s little booklet on corporal correction, which I’ll talk about a bit more shortly. Personally, I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out between consenting adults using safe sex practices – what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline. I have also heard comments and stories from victims who have directly experienced the connection, but whose words will never be heard in public because of the nature of the offence against them. Section 59 of the Crimes Act, has been protecting the perpetrators of a vicious mix of sexual and physical abuse for generations, and I don’t want this forgotten. I just want it stopped.

Notice that she links “sexual perversion” and the literature produced by Carey College and Family Integrity. She produces absolutely no evidence and then claims that section 59 is allowing this sexual abuse to continue. She claims that “groups predominately made of up men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat their children” and giving instructions how to use the rod “the closer the unspoken connection [between sex and corporal punishment] gets”. She goes on to give Carey College, a Christian school, and Family Integrity, a Christian lobby group, as examples of organisations who produce such literature. “This [sexual perversion she identifies as sadomasochism] is accentuated” by the literature put out by these two Christian organisations. To accentuate means to  “bring out distinctly; to make prominent; to emphasize”. Surely Bradford has overstepped the mark here and slandered godly people who are merely promoting traditional values. Bradford gives absolutely no proof of her malignant claim of a link between these groups and sadomasochism, or show one instance where such perversion has never been prosecuted successfully in a court because of section 59 of the Crimes Act.

Where would such a baseless lie come from? The Bible tells us that Satan is the father of lies. And surely this is a lie of satanic proportions: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). MPs should be up in arms in the house over this diabolical libel against good Christian citizens, and  Bradford should be disciplined for bringing parliament into disrepute. Because these Christian groups are small and have no financial base, they will never be able to take Bradford to court for promoting such atrocious lies about the connection between kinky perverted sex and Christian parental love. The Scriptures say: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ( Isa 5:20)” 

The tyranny of neo-pagan totalitarianism must be stopped. Are there MPs of principle prepared to step up to the plate and repudiate this nonsense?

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »

So, what is a crime?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 19, 2007

So, what is a crime?

by Nigel from the Kiwi Pundit blog
Monday, April 02, 2007

Tony Milne and others on the left are saying that removal of the s59 defence does not criminalize smacking because smacking has always been a crime, e.g.:

Smacking has been illegal for 100 years but there has been a defence in law.

The argument is that defences are something you use in court to avoid conviction, they do not affect whether the act was or was not a crime.

Leaving aside the fact that the real issue is whether parents who smack with reasonable force are liable to be prosecuted and convicted and/or have CYFS take away their kids, my view is that a crime requires three things:

1. A prohibited act or omission.

2. The required mental state (intention, negligence or others depending on how the offence is defined).

3. Absence of any defence or excuse.

Clearly this is correct where the defence or excuse is in the same section of the Act as the prohibited conduct. Otherwise all sexual intercourse would be a illegal and consent would just be a defence you could use in court. Likewise carrying a knife in public would always be a crime even if you just bought the knife and were transporting it home.

So the theory must be that the location of the defence or excuse in a statute determines whether it is an element of the crime. If it’s in the same section as the prohibited conduct it prevents that conduct being a crime but if it’s in a separate section it doesn’t.

The problem here is that general defences apply to a number of crimes. Section 59, for instance, applies to kidnapping and other crimes as well as assault. Self-defence can apply to a very wide range of conduct. General defence provisions, separate from the conduct they apply to, are not created out of a desire by Parliament to treat the conduct as criminal but with a way of avoiding conviction. They are created simply to avoid all those defences and excuses needing to be attached to each and every provision to which they might apply. It’s just sensible drafting to do that.

A further point is that existence of a defence may alter the crime the defendant committed. Provocation can be used to reduce murder to manslaughter. How could this be if the definitions of murder and manslaughter exist entirely independently of the defence provisions?

So the claim that defences don’t make any difference as to whether conduct is illegal or criminal leads to various absurdities, no matter how you analayse it.

The final point is that the only reason bill opponents are saying the bill makes smacking illegal, is to explain the conclusion that decent parents who currently use light smacking as a form of disciple will be liable for prosecution and conviction if the bill passes. Even if you accept the Labour and Green claims that smacking is currently illegal, the conclusion still holds. The argument simply becomes that removal of the defence will leave decent parents liable to prosecution and conviction.

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »

Barnardos Put Politics before Children

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 16, 2007

Source: Section59blog

Barnardos Put Politics before Children

this article from http://nzconservative.blogspot .com

Barnardos seem to be putting politics rather than children first, as they quickly capitalize on the recent headlines created by the infamous “Riding Crop” case to push their agenda. The “new” case hasn’t even been judged yet, but as usual, judgment is quickly passed by organisations that should know better.

But since we are asked to “pause and reflect” by Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos New Zealand, I will.

Murray muses: “Perhaps the latest incident would have been avoided if the community, through the court, had told the family that the use of physical force in child discipline was unambiguously wrong.”

Well, perhaps the latest incident could have been avoided if CYFS had not removed her younger son against his will from his mother and sister, and kept him away from the family for two years now since the mother was acquitted. Does Murray see any correlation between being found “not guilty” and the psychological damage that follows when the state removes her child anyway?

But let’s wait until the court case is complete and the full facts of the matter come out, before we let the vultures in for the kill. Nice one Murray Edridge.

Related Link: Barnardos Swoop for the Kill

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »


Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 5, 2007

Source: topix

Diane writes: 

 Jan 17, 2007


I have found that any involvement with CYFS is an apparent waste of time. It appears that child welfare is able to be neglected by the Rotorua branch when asked to do so by a person who used to be employed there in a senior postion. Noel Josephs seems to be able to bend all the rules when his family is involved in child abuse so I can only conclude that CYFS can be manipulated from within.It would be interesting to hear from others who have had similar experiences.

web metrics

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | 1 Comment »

Police might exercise discretion but CYFS won’t

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

Source: Whale Oil Beef Hooked

Police might exercise discretion but CYFS won’t

Whaleoil's picture

The lies of Duplicitous Duo, Sue Bradford and Helen Clark, continue to be exposed.

There may lie and the one being trumpeted loudly by the lickspittles is that the law doesn’t ban smacking when it demonstrably does, the second main lie is that the police will exercise discretion, of course the second lie is much more insidious because what would happen if the Police were informed of an incident.

Well we can wonder no more because a mother in Fielding bothered to actually ask what no MSM so-called journalist hasn’t, “If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for correction and my neighbour saw it and called police – would you have to come out and investigate?”

Her answer from Fielding Police, was YES. So what!, you say. Well Mrs Elliot, clearly more diligent that any news reporter asked some further questions.


Police national headquarters confirmed this for the Manawatu Standard, but added the call would be prioritised, as all police calls are. It would come under the category of domestic violence.Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the information to CYFS. The answer again was yes.

She was told that if police believed the child was in no immediate danger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fortnightly about family violence and that’s when information would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.

“That’s the bit that scared me – having CYFS on your doorstep,” Mrs Elliott said.

“I’ve got nice neighbours, but not everyone does.

“A light smack for correction is not abuse,” she added.

So, then, who is afraid now….a sea of hands…..So there you have it, the lie that Police would do nothing is proven by asking, who else, the Police, confirmed by National Headquarters and with the sting of CYFS in the tail as well.

web metrics

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | 1 Comment »

Smacking and Child Abuse: Facts

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

Source: This Is New Zealand

Saturday, 24 March 2007

Smacking and Child Abuse: Facts

New Zealanders have been exposed to a range of remarkably nonsensical and meaningless ideological drivel in the Section 59 repeal debate. This post and the next set out to separate fact from fiction in this issue which is currently progressing through the NZ Parliament.

Firstly, facts. Most child abuse in New Zealand is not corrective, it is mindless thuggery perpetuated by parents who should never have had children in the first place, and complicitly supported by government anti-family policies such as the DPB, easier divorce, weakening marriage, weakening the justice system and laws, breaking down moral authority in society, etc. These situations have come about as a result of socialist politicians subjecting our country to relentless social engineering for the benefit of a relative few people who want to experiment with alternative lifestyles, but to the detriment of many weak minded individuals who have fallen through the cracks. The fact that there is so much weak-mindedness nowadays is in no small measure due to the agenda to break down all traditional morals and teaching of them. Leading Left politicians in NZ have said that they want to see an end to all “Victorian” morality. They want to practice alternative lifestyles with no regard for consequences for society as a whole or other people.

We have a vestigial remnant of Christian schooling that Labour hasn’t yet managed to shut down, that teaches strong moral values to children as part of their education. People who send their children to these schools do so because they know well that the moral teaching in the vast majority of cases produces productive members of society who make a strong contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of New Zealand. In the pre-WW2 era of NZ this was also the case to a large extent in the State system. Even in the first Labour government of 1935 there were significant levels of moral conservatism, the corrupt ideas are more a product of the post-WW2 era.

Create that moral vacuum and you have individuals making weak, mostly self centred decisions. Child abuse is characterised by selfishness on the part of the weak excuses for parents who are in large measure unfit to bring up children. There has been a huge increase in these situations since policies have broken down the family structure. That is where child abuse is coming from and it is the main reason why this Section 59 Bill represents one more step towards creating even more problems in society rather than solving anything.

Let’s take another example, the Christchurch Longitudinal Study of about 1000 individuals born in a certain period. Quoting from Lindsay Mitchell’s posting on the subject, we can see that smacking was quite distinctively different from child abuse for the majority of respondents. In summary,

  • Evaluation of the relationships between reports of physical punishment or abuse during childhood and psychosocial outcomes in early adulthood clearly showed that young people reporting harsh or abusive treatment had increased rates of conduct problems, substantial abuse, depression, anxiety and violent crime. (This was about 4% of the sample)
  • There were, however, no clear differences between the adjustment of young people who reported that their parents never used physical punishment and those who reported that their parents infrequently used physical punishment. (The 96% majority, including 77% in the latter category)
  • In general, young people reporting high exposure to physical punishment tended to come from socially disadvantaged family backgrounds that were characterised by multiple sources of adversity that spanned parental divorce or separation, high levels of parental conflict, parental illicit drug usage, parental alcohol problems, parental criminality, depressed living standards and high levels of exposure to stressful life events.
  • Statistical control for social and contextual factors associated with child physical punishment or abuse suggested that to a large extent the elevated risks of adjustment problems found in children exposed to harsh or abusive treatment reflected the social context within which the child was reared, rather than the traumatic effects of abusive treatment on later personal adjustment.
  • There was no evidence to suggest that those exposed to occasional physical punishment by their parents were at any greater or any lesser risk of adjustment problems than those whose parents did not use physical punishment methods.


  1. Occasional smacking of children is not harmful and should not be banned as the intent is to do
  2. Child abuse will not be addressed in any significant way by this Bill, and we should not believe the claims of its supporters.

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | 1 Comment »

Smacking and Child Abuse: Fallacies

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on April 3, 2007

Source: This Is New Zealand 

Saturday, 24 March 2007

Smacking and Child Abuse: Fallacies

This post is based upon the arguments being put forward by the supporters of the Section 59 Repeal bill, and exposes the fallacies in them. In doing so I will just focus on what has been said in Parliament.

The first problem I have with this Bill is the total hypocrisy in opposing Chester Borrows’ amendments on the grounds they would provide a limited form of defence against child abuse. Apparently the police and judiciary could not be trusted to rule effectively on the terms “trifling and transitory” which he used to allow corrective force to be justified in the amendment. Yet in almost the same breath, the Bill’s supporters tell us that the police are to be trusted not to prosecute with discretion once the whole section has been repealed. This is a ridiculously absurd argument.

Now, on to the Parliamentary debates. There have been three to date:

  1. Introduction and First Reading – 27 July 2005
  2. Second Reading – 21 February 2007
  3. Committee of the whole House – 14 March 2007

Some of the pro-repeal arguments with brief rebuttals:

  • Reflects Greens non-violence policy – hippy New Age beliefs not rooted in reality
  • S.59 is part of state sanctioned violence culture – Greens “peace at all cost” policy is again hippy New Age nonsense
  • CYFS does not have an agenda – department is hellbent on implementing UNCROC
  • Linking high level of child abuse – this is a result of similar flaky policies not from smacking
  • Simply about removing section 59 defence – will not stop child abuse from incompetent parents
  • Must conform to UNCROC – who signed us up to yet another undemocratic UN ideology
  • Children do not rebel against parents, rebelling is a positive force in society – we all know that rebellion is a negative and destructive force that has to be countered for the good of the community.
  • S.59 is the last vestige of colonial culture in NZ society – Maori culture was very violent, violence is not unique to any culture
  • Jesus did not advocate physical punishment – Jesus is silent on the issue, and he referred to people leading children into sin which applies to those who do not discipline their children
  • Labour caucus is united on the issue – wavering suggests otherwise
  • Maori violence against children resulted from colonisation – Maori society pre colonisation was extremely violent and colonisation had positive impacts for it.
  • Smacking a child is already a crime (Russell Fairbrother [Labour]) – in existing law it is not a crime when used for corrective purposes.

And here are some anti-repeal arguments which I agree with:

  • The relative few cases of successfully defended abuse with riding crops, whips or jug cords have been whipped up into a frenzy by pro repeal campaigners. There have only been 18 successful defences of this clause in a 30 year period (according to National MP Chris Tremain). There have been a vastly greater number of children harmed by child abuse that the Bill will not address at all.
  • Welfarism and anti-family policies are the basic cause behind high levels of child abuse and no amount of tinkering with law like Section 59 will alter this
  • Why has the abolition of corporal punishment not improved our schools?
  • UNCROC argument is misleading because it is not a requirement of that convention
  • Countries where there is the best relationships between children and their parents are countries that allow this “reasonable force”.
  • The police will have to investigate all complaints regardless of circumstances regardless of what has been claimed contrarily.

Overall summary of pro-repeal debate:

  • Left-wing speaker after left-wing speaker attempted to muddy the issue by referring to child abuse as the main driver.
  • Sue Bradford came into the Second Reading debate saying that the amendments to the Bill reflected her “original intention” to abolish parental force for the purpose of correction. Yet, nowhere in the First Reading debate did Bradford even refer to force for the purpose of correction. The issue was wholly about force as a defence. Marian Hobbs was the only speaker in the first debate who referred to the use of force for correction.

We have to assume that Bradford has invented this reasoning through the select committee process. That same process substantially amended the Bill’s intent along these lines. The original wording of the Bill as submitted to Parliament makes no mention of this case. The phrase “force against…children for the purpose of correction” comes from the select committee report. Hence, the original purpose of the Bill and its effect has been substantially altered by the select committee process. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the Bill was originally introduced to Parliament with one stated but entirely misleading intent when there was another agenda which has now been revealed from the select committee process.

The second fact about the select committee hearings is that the title of the Bill was altered to the wishy-washy “Substituted section 59” version rather than its original title referring to the abolition of reasonable force. Why was this necessary? It seems to be the intent to mislead about the true intentions.

Contrary to the claims of the proponents of this Bill that it is not about parents smacking their children, the select committee report summed up supporting submissions along these lines:

  • that physical discipline on children is ineffective compared with other forms of discipline
  • that there is a connection between the physical disciplining of children and child abuse
  • that section 59 provides less protection against assault for children than adults
  • that physical discipline is linked with longer-term psychological and developmental problems
  • that is was not the intention of the bill to criminalise parents and that fears of prosecution for trivial use of physical discipline are unfounded
  • that repealing section 59 would send a strong anti-violence message to society and encourage behavioural change.

There are a number of misleading statements here which are clearly targeted at smacking, despite claims this is not about smacking, and these claims do not stand up to critical scrutiny.

A part of the Bill which has not received attention is two amendments to section 139A of the Education Act 1989, relating to corporal punishment in schools. Since the whole debate is about corporal punishment it is dishonest to insert these

It is well known that Christians are the main proponents of corrective force and the true intent of this Bill has to be seen as a measure to bring about an intent of all corrective force being, at the least, watered down. The Greens’ constant attacks upon the police’s use of corrective force such as the anti-Taser campaign has to be seen in this context.

As I noted above, there is a complete hypocrisy in the child abuse line of reasoning because we are supposed to accept that the police and courts cannot be relied upon if Section 59 is kept, yet we are relying on their discretion if the section is repealed as well.

Posted in WATCHINGCYFSWATCH Commentry | Leave a Comment »