Family Integrity #223 — Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases

From: Craig Smith
Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2007 1:52 p.m.
Subject: Family Integrity #223 — Summary of Timaru Riding Crop cases

Greetings all,

Things around the Section 59 debate are getting very heated, very confused, somewhat scary and way off topic.

The pro-repeal side have taken the lady from Timaru wielding the horse crop as their "poster girl" to advertise why parents should be legally forbidden to use a Section 59 defense, or any defense, to correct their children using reasonable force, regardless of how light it might be:
because, they claim, it too easily leads to horrendous acts of violence and abuse against children that are subsequently "let off" by the courts
when the parents and their clever lawyers bring up Section 59 and plead something along the lines that parents have a right to discipline their own children.

This kind of explanation is clearly a mix of truth and error.

First, the pro-repeal lobby (Bradford and her mates) only ever look at the actions of the parents toward the child: in this case, the mum gave
the boy six of the best with an 18 inch bamboo pot-plant stake and later two or three strokes with the riding crop. They do not look at the wider context of family history, events leading to the corrective action, the results, etc. (The jury did…that’s why she was acquitted so quickly.)

We all would be horrified to hear of a parent striking a child in this way FOR NO REASON. So Bradford and Kiro and Clark and Edridge et al all play on this and always completely ignore the context of the disciplinary actions. One must suppose that to them, whatever the child
has done can in no way justify a disciplinary smack, not ever, not for any reason, no matter how light the smack, no matter how horrible and
damaging the child’s actions, no matter how reasonable the force used.

This is precisely the tact taken by the UN Committee for the Rights of the Child in a comment on this issue they published in June last year
(see <http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo&gt;). This is a modern philosophy that has very little support or currency among parents anywhere in the world.
That is certainly what Labour and the Greens are finding out here: 85% of Kiwis do not agree with a ban on smacking children for corrective
purposes as part of the parenting tool kit.

Second, if the Swedish experiment is any indication as to why this philosophy is pushed so vehemently by virtually ALL government
departments and virtually ALL so-called child and family welfare groups (virtually ALL of whom are also heavily funded by the state), it is
because this philosophy CAUSES family dysfunction. As family dysfunction increases, so does social dysfunction. A chorus goes up, "Why doesn’t somebody DO something?" Up step the state agencies and those groups funded by the state: social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers plus all their secretaries and office staff have vested interests in seeing the dysfunction continue and increase, for it means more money for them. Such bureaucracies ALWAYS tend to grow, for their focus very quickly becomes one of self-preservation rather than working themselves out of a job by finding permanent solutions to the social problems they were supposedly set up to solve.

Third, Bradford and her mates are strongly implying that they think the juries in such trials, 12 of their peers, are thick as bricks or somehow
otherwise intellectually deficient and unable to tell the difference between "reasonable force to correct" and "abuse". Or they are simply
saying they don’t like the decision made by the juries. These things are implied, but what Bradford and co are really trying to do is impose
their own philosophy on everyone else by saying that juries should not have to decide such things, that the law should always clearly rule any use of force, regardless of how light or reasonable, outside the law if that force is used for the purpose of correction. What Bradford has
never told us is why she so hates the perfectly natural idea, one practised for thousands of years, of parents correcting their children.

Fourth, the one group solidly against this bill is parents. Contrary to what Bradford and Kiro claim, parents are not clamouring for the "right"
to beat their children…how ridiculous can you get, Bradford. Parents are proclaiming that they have natural duties and responsibilities
toward their children and resent the state – especially a radically feminist and childless Prime Minister and an even more radically feminist Sue Bradford of the highly dysfunctional lifestyle track record – parents resent the state and thoroughly unqualified people like Clark
and Bradford interposing themselves between parents and their children claiming they have to protect the child’s rights from being denied and trampled on by the parents.

This denigration and bullying of parents by the state has to stop. Only parents will ever love and be as committed to their children as they
routinely are….certainly Clark and Bradford and state social workers have little to offer children in the areas of love and commitment.
Parents also have most to lose by this legislation: their own children, their own family harmony and peace, their own authority within their own families and over their own children to correct, train and discipline using any degree of reasonable force. This Bill is clear evidence of the state claiming for itself the posterity of us all, our children, and wanting the best shot at determining the future by indoctrinating our
children in its schools and allowing only its agents (police and social workers), not the parents, to force them to behave in certain ways
approved by the state.

The Present Debate

I’ve cut and pasted three items below.

The first is a blog from July last year revealing details of a pending court case which will not happen until November 2007 apparently. This
involves the Timaru riding crop lady and an older son in a separate incident in which she is again being charged with assault.

The second item is a news story from last Friday about this very court case. Note how different the two accounts are. The first apparently is
based on a chat with the Timaru lady herself, the second is based on the testimony of the son.

The third item is one blogger’s go at knitting the two together….and this is the scary part: it looks as if the Police and the Justice System
are being manipulated by CYFS and maybe the Labour-led Government for the purely pragmatic ends of achieving their political
social-engineering agenda. Truth and justice are quite possibly being trampled upon for the higher "good" that our "ever-so-wise" and
"benevolent" leaders in Parliament have determined we need, even though we are apparently too thick to see it for ourselves.

There is clearly something going on with this Bill, for Labour has revealed that they are particularly committed to it and prepared to take
a lot of very damaging hits (sustained criticism from media, disapproval of voters, the embarrassment of trying to push it through urgency and then trying – and failing – to make it a Government Bill) if only they can secure its passage into law.

And here is where the debate has gone off topic: smacking is a peripheral issue. This bill will criminalise parents using reasonable force – any force – to correct their children, thus prohibiting the most basic expression of their authority: the use of reasonable force. If you have no ability to use force, you have no authority, for you cannot enforce anything. Police and the courts would be reduced to making suggestions only if they could not use force (arrest, fines, imprisonment) to enforce the laws. The use of force is basic and inseparable from authority.

 
In addition, since the word "correct" is not defined in NZ law, it can be made to mean a huge range of things including any attempt by parents to train or discipline or improve or coach their children. Why is Bradford so vehemently against parents doing such things? And forbidding the use of any reasonable force is not just a ban on smacking…it is totally illogical to ban what is reasonable, and since "reasonable force" is also undefined in law, it can surely apply to any effort by the parents to impose, force, their will upon the child, however they might attempt to do this: time out, restrain, threaten, withhold affection or privileges, grounding, argue, yell and scream, humiliate, emotionally manipulate, negotiate, demand, appeal to conscience or religion or tradition or culture, etc. This effectively forbids any
imposition of parental requirements or prohibitions upon children, unless one of two things can be established: the role of parents is to
impose their best set of standards and attitudes and understandings upon their children; or the role of parents is to merely care for their
children’s physical needs and impose as little moral guidance upon them as possible unless the children have agreed or have given their
permission.
Bradford’s Bill appears to be totally committed to that second option.  This is precisely what Bradford and Clark mean when they talk about
children being given the same rights as adults. Certainly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) is pushing this idea of
children being considered as individuals separate from their families, with their own rights which will be proclaimed, defined and defended by
the state against those who are most likely to deny the child those rights: the child’s parents.

Conclusion

Anyway, please do not make any judgements about the latest media and blog-land revelations and discussions of the Timaru riding crop lady’s situation: we may well not have the full facts until the end of the year, after the trial. But we will get the facts; and they already promise to be a lot more complicated and involved than we’re likely to read in the media’s sensationalised pulp.

Please also do not assume that we or anyone else is holding the Timaru lady up as a sterling example for us all to follow, encouraging us all
to go out and buy a riding crop to have handy. I know she would not wish her life’s story and family context on to anyone else. But do recall
that in the original riding crop court case, the jury unanimously acquitted her within one hour of deliberation without her or any other witness saying one word in her defense: the prosecution did all the talking! Many people are striving to clarify the facts of this case (facts that Bradford, Murry Edridge of Barnardos, Kiro, Pillay and others steadfastly and creatively obscure rather than elucidate). They strive to make the facts clear because they feel she is being unfairly, maliciously and unjustly caricatured by the repeal lobby for their own political agendas, and not for the good of her, her family or the many other families whose peace and security and integrity will most definitely be threatened by Bradford’s Bill. And the press demonise her and misreport the facts for the low-life purpose of creating sensational headlines to artificially boost sales.

And don’t forget that the real issue is the state usurping from parents their natural authority over their own children. This will of necessity
deliver to the state and its agents the only legal authority to correct children by using any degree of force, these state agents being the
police, social workers and to a lesser degree, school teachers. (Though have you heard that in the UK, school teachers have re-gained the
authority to use force with children not just in the classroom, but on the streets as well? It is a very logical step in the totalitarian agenda to gain complete control over "our" children since they are increasingly considered to be "the nation’s" children).

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

Our Home….Our Castle

 

Item One

http://big-news.blogspot.com/search?q=broke+nose
Saturday, July 01, 2006
son breaks "riding crop" mum’s nose

post has been updated 6pm
The woman who was acquitted in court of physically disciplining her 12-year-old son with a riding crop was visited by her six-foot 16-year
old son in January. He kicked his stepfather in the head and broke his mothers nose. The last time the mothers nose was boken was when she was assaulted by an ex-husband who was charged with assault. However the police have not laid assault charges against the boy, despite his parents pressing for this.

The mother had access rights after the son was told to live with his father because she was deemed an unsafe parent by Child, Youth and
Family, because she disciplined the younger one with a riding crop and a cane.

But this older son is a brat. Since living with his father he has had free access to alcohol and party pills and, according to his mother, has
been breaking into cars and has appeared before the youth court on 13 charges.

As well as breaking his mothers nose, and kicking his stepfather in the head with his size 15 shoes (his stepfather has a serious head injury,
remember) he repeatedly spat at them both while travelling with them in the car. The stepfather had to physically restrain the boy, and pull him off his mother. He was punching her and repeatedly calling her a f…….. arsehole, f….. whore, and a few other things. So she
physically disciplined him and his stepfather tied his feet together to stop him from kicking him in the head again, before calling the police,
who handcuffed the swearing boy and took him away.

Now, this mother along with her husband is facing an assault charge laid last month after the boy went to CYFS the following week. That is why it is now in the media. Perhaps CYFS, or its supporters, has released information on the case.

More sadly, CYFS Dunedin manager Peter Guest has now stopped the younger sons unsupervised access to his mum specifically because of the charges.  He did this just two days before the holidays, without even telling the boy. The boy was going to stay with his mum over the holidays next week. Instead he found out from his mother that he is to stay with his grandmother, who was the approved CYFS caregiver that physically disciplined the boy and gave him Risperdal and Ritalin.

Guest is also trying to take the woman’s daughter away from her again. The mother has complained to the police and laid charges of assault
against her son but has been told that she has to prove that she was assaulted before the police would do anything. This is despite the fact
that CYFS did not have to prove charges against the parent, and that case is before the courts.

Perhaps the ACC claim form for the broken nose may be proof.

Anyone with half a brain can now find out this woman’s name through the media,as one paper has named her on the assault charge and then
linkedthe two cases together on anohter report – but her name is permanently suppressed by the courts. For obvious reasons I have not
provided links to the papers concerned.

Do you think the older boy should be charged with assault?

 

Item Two

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4024349a10.html
Horsewhip case mum accused of new attack
The Timaru Herald | Friday, 13 April 2007
The woman acquitted of assaulting her son with a cane and horsewhip, in a case cited as a justification for the anti-smacking bill, is to face
trial on charges of assaulting another of her sons.  The woman and her husband appeared in Timaru District Court yesterday. After depositions, the man pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure. His wife pleaded not guilty to three charges of assault and one of assault with intent to injure.

Justices of the peace Kevin Dey and Margaret Cosgrove remanded the pair on bail to April 30 for the setting of a trial date.

In May 2005 a Timaru jury found the woman not guilty of two charges of assaulting a son, then aged under 14. She admitted giving him "six of the best" with a cane for misbehaving at school, and striking him three to four times with a horsewhip after an incident in which he waved a baseball bat at her partner.

Yesterday, her teenage son told the court he was punched, kicked and hog-tied by his stepfather after he agreed he had no respect for him.
All the charges arose out of a journey the three made in January last year. The night before the trip, it had been agreed they would leave at
9.30am, but the following morning the man was shouting and swearing because he considered they were running late, even though they were on the road at 9.15.

The man swore at the boy frequently and the boy responded the same way. At one stage his mother suggested he had no respect for the man. When he agreed he did not, he said his mother slapped and punched him in the face at least three times.  A few minutes later, he punched his mother once on the temple. The man stopped the vehicle and got out. The boy got out too, and started walking away. The man punched him with a closed fist. The boy was also kicked in the chest and kidneys.

The man told his wife to get some tape from the vehicle. He bound the boy’s arms and taped them to his leg.  The man told his wife to call the police. Instead, she suggested they take the boy to Geraldine police station. It was closed, so they decided to drive to the Timaru station.
The boy managed to call his birth father on his cellphone, but his mother grabbed the phone. His mouth was filling with blood from his bleeding nose. He spat it out, further angering his stepfather.

The vehicle stopped and the boy ran into the road, in front of a vehicle driven by Geraldine man Colin Hobbs. Mr Hobbs told the court the boy’s arms were tied together. There was blood around his nose and mouth.

Mr Hobbs saw the man kick the boy two or three times and then grab him by the scruff of the neck, pulling him toward the vehicle, and put both his knees into the boy’s ribcage.

"He was putting everything into it," he said. The woman did nothing to stop the assault.

When Senior Constable Graeme Walker arrived at the scene, all three family members were visibly upset. In an attempt to defuse the
situation, he took the boy home and sent the couple on their way.

 

Item Three

http://big-news.blogspot.com/search/label/riding%20crop
Friday, April 13, 2007
Riding crop mother has her day in court, again

NB this post has been updated
As some people are expecting me to write about the riding crop mum of Timaru (and I wish people would stick to the facts and desist from
calling it a horse whip), who was back in court on assault charges, I may as well.

As readers will know, I was a aware of the charges, in fact I blogged about them in July last year. That’s how long it has taken to come to
court. Public Address blogger Russell Brown criticises my earlier post: the account of the third-party witness, who has no reason to lie, directly contradicts the account relayed by Dave Crampton on some key points. Hopefully he’ll now stop depicting these people as victims of their terrible children and think a bit harder about the violence in this family.

Actually, the account of the witness doesn’t contradict my key points. Thats because the witness didn’t witness the woman assaulting the
boy.Neither did he witness the boy punching his mother in the face and breaking her nose at the start of this whole sorry episode. He witnessed the father assaulting the boy, and that father pleaded guilty to assault, as he should.

What Russell Brown hasn’t mentioned is the following, much is (apparently) in the summary of facts but not in the media report he relies on: The teenager (aged 16 or 17) was on an access visit. He punched his mother in the face and broke her nose prior to all this happening, resulting in his mother getting ACC. He was was charged with assault but Police decided not to pursue it and let him off with a formal warning, reasons of which are suppressed. Charges were laid against the mother but police withdrew the charges when they found out
what her son had done, but the crown relaid them after what was most probably political and CYF pressures after the boy got his warning.

Furthermore, the man who witnessed the stepfather’s assault on the boy has said that the woman didn’t exactly do anything to stop the assault – but would you if your nose had just been broken? Russell has criticised the woman, alleging that she is a bad parent for not doing anything to stop the beating, even questioning why she did not call out for her partner to stop.[This has since been refuted in comments by the woman herself].

Russell has criticised the actions of both parents, but not the teenager. Why? I don`t condone the actions of the stepfather either, but
if Russell’s son was in the care of a former partner or CYFs and came home on an access visit, broke his nose, spat blood in his face,
assaulted his partner, kicked him and swore at him, what would he do – give him a hug and play this http://www.amplifier.co.nz/video/17174/welcome_home.html> on his stereo?

posted by Dave at 3:52 PM
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2007/04/riding-crop-mother-has-her-day-in-court.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s