Family Integrity #253 — Post Mortem

Amen, brother.

—–Original Message—–
From: Craig Smith [mailto:Craig@hef.org.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:14 PM
Subject: Family Integrity #253 — Post Mortem

A truly sad day for New Zealand.

The final vote in Parliament was 113 in favour and 8 against the bill to
criminalise parents by making the correction of children a criminal
offense, a subset of assault, worth as much as two years in jail.

The passage of this bill has tipped New Zealand into the cauldron of
socialist totalitarianism. This is more sophisticated than the old USSR
technique of ruling by sheer terror and sealing the borders. This new
version weakens all resolve by offering every financial support, even
for the most irresponsible of lifestyles (the excesses of the social
welfare system), and then it controls children’s affections by the
intense indoctrination of the compulsory secular school system and ease
of access to all manner of inappropriate viewing and listening media,
and then it controls parents by threatening through CYFS and other
interventionist bureaucracies to take away even their few hours of
caring for their children each day, after the schools have already
robbed them of their affection and loyalty.

"If the major political parties had allowed a conscience vote on this
bill as originally promised, the bill would have been dead and buried at
the 2nd reading," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.
"It is tragic that while the government turns a blind eye to the major
problems of gang violence, drunken teen parties, the ‘P’ epidemic,
violence in schools, violence towards police, gambling addiction,
housing concerns, and breakdown in families, they have found plenty of
energy and time to pass a law that targets good parents doing a great
job."

Bob forgot to mention the abortion industry which encourages mothers to
pre-meditate upon killing their own children and the assisted suicide
and euthanasia movements which want to change the public’s attitude
toward death from the curse that it is, brought in as a result of the
original sin of our original parents, Adam and Eve, to a welcomed
friend, one that would soon be introduced to babies born with even the
most minor defects, including the non-preferred gender, and into
hospital practice for the helpless, the cantakerous, the demented. And
let’s not forget the porn industry, which is defiling more and more
school children on and off campus. All these things promote a culture of
death and despondency, purposelessness and meaninglessness. But they
foment dysfunction, and that helps fire up a perpetual motion and
income-generating circus of social workers, psychologists,
psychiatrists, lawyers, counsellors, foster agencies, foster homes,
women’s refuges, politicians and innumerable child-advocacy groups, all
feeding off this increased dysfunction. Sadly, none of these groups ever
focus on working themselves out of a job.

A Family First press release tells how a leading QC has recommended to
parents that, now Bradford’s bill has passed, they never acknowledge
that they are "correcting" bad behaviour. This new Section 59 makes
child correction a criminal act. Grant Illingworth QC said, "The
difficulty…is that it does not tell us what "correction" means. In
ordinary language, and for most ordinary people, correction would
include preventing a child from continuing to engage in offensive or
disruptive behaviour and preventing harm to another child [actions
allowed by this new Section 59]. But that cannot be the correct
interpretation because it would mean that the section is self
contradictory."
Mr Illingworth went on to say that this is of enormous importance, for
if a parent intended to "correct" a child’s disruptive and offensive
behaviour, and this intention came to light in the course of an
investigation, that parent would have no defense against a charge of
criminal assault, even though the force used would appear identical to
that which another parent might use simply to prevent the continuation
of disruptive and offensive behaviour.
"The moral of the story is that, in any investigation, it would be
extremely unwise for a parent to admit that she or he was attempting to
correct a child’s aberrant behaviour. And if that isn’t silly, I don’t
know what is."

What Now?
One must evaluate one’s options in the light of whether one’s child
rearing practices are likely to be incriminating and whether they are
likely to come to the notice of either CYFS or the Police.
A police officer informed me last night that they will have to
investigate any reported case of force used to correct. This will
obviously be an interpretation on the part of whoever makes the
complaint. But because this kind of complaint will fall under the
category of "domestic violence", and the police have a zero tolerance
policy toward domestic violence, they will have to investigate.
Remember, this includes a lot more than mere smacking. It is about any
use of force: taking a child’s arm, hand, shoulder to direct them in a
certain direction when disruption, offense, criminal activity or harm
are not at issue; confinement against the child’s will; requiring dress
and grooming codes to conform to your tastes when the child objects and
a large section of society would find nothing offensive in the child’s
choices; and prohibiting your children from associating with persons or
visiting premises about which you do not approve but which are not
illegal or obviously harmful.
Parenting must start early. Train your children to think and believe and
react as you do from day one. Do not expose them too much or too early
to worldviews and ways of which you do not approve if you do not want
them to develop a taste for them or a desire to try them out. Sending
one’s children to public schools takes on a very serious set of
implications as a result….you must be prepared to have your children
adopt ways of thinking, dressing, grooming, speaking, obeying,
disobeying, attitudes and values that are not your own, for you will be
virtually powerless to correct them. If anyone knows how to correct
error or misguided or inappropriate or unhealthy or unwholesome or
undesirable or ways that are just plain wrong….if anyone knows how to
effect correction without the use of any kind of force, many others
would like to hear about it. It appears to me that parents will be
reduced to advisors of autonomous children. From my reading of UN
documents and particularly of Michael Reid’s book "From Innocents to
Agents" (Maxim, 2006), that is precisely the objective of those behind
this bill.
Some have suggested we get the Governor-General to withhold the Royal
Assent.
I clearly recall that then GG Sir Paul Reeves signed into law a bill
that forbids the GG from withholding the Royal Assent. He was GG from
1985 to 1990. Actually, I’ve had a look around the internet and can find
no evidence of this, although I clearly remember it being discussed in
the news of the day.

I did find this however:

"The last time a Monarch refused assent to a Bill (no Governor or
Governor-General has ever done so) was during the reign of Queen Anne in
1708."
(http://www.holdenrepublic.org.nz/2006/09/telling-lies-for-her-majesty-r
oyal.html) (There is some very informative discussion on this website.)

"The Queen reigns, the government rules, so long as it has the support
of the House of Representatives" This is the simple rule that keeps
things ticking along. Until the Parliament votes itself dictatorial
powers and abolishes elections, the GG will not withhold Royal Assent.

From:
http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=167,
speech by Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie-Boys, 24 May 1996:

(Start Quote)
Constitutionalists differ as to what these powers [of the
Governor-General] might be. I will give you five. There is no doubt
about the first. Some would doubt the last. The five are:

(1) to appoint a Prime Minister;

(2) to dismiss a Prime Minister;

(3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament;

(4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and

(5) to refuse assent to legislation.

Examples of the use of all but the first of these powers are rare, and
are always controversial. Indeed, the very rarity of their exercise
gives rise to contentions that they have ceased to exist at all. That is
particularly true of the last of them.
(End Quote)

So it would appear that we can forget thinking about that route.

What are some other alternatives?

I have already received copies of letters people have sent to MPs
stating clearly that they will not obey this bill if it is passed into
law. This is one way to react: simply disregard the law and be prepared
to suffer the consequences. These include prosecution and a criminal
record. Such a record will bar you from travel to some overseas
destinations….the USA, for example, will not issue a visa to people
with criminal records. It will bar you from certain occupations and
job/career opportunities. But the most frightening prospect is having
CYFS take your children. This will break your heart, crush your spirit,
drain your assets and drive you deep into debt. And it is likely your
children will also suffer REAL abuse at the hands of CYFS and foster
homes.

Another is to decide to modify your child-rearing practices to what you
think the law may be saying. This is extremely difficult for nobody
knows what it says. It will require a number of test cases to establish
precedents and definitions. Each test case, I would suggest, will
represent another family chewed up and destroyed by this process.

Another would be to become very discreet about how you operate, that you
train your children not to talk about anything that goes on or is
discussed within your home. (Oh, darn….how does one train a
child…would that not include correction and force?) You may want to
monitor all your children’s conversations. Again, children spending so
much time at school, away from your guidance and influence, takes on a
new perspective. Teachers, of course, will be instituting new safety
programmes and children’s rights programmes which will spell out to
children what their parents can and cannot do. The legislation that was
just passed is extremely vague, but the programmes in the schools will
not be vague: they will be clear and extreme. The UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 of June 2006, outlines how
all "academic institutions, professional associations, youth groups",
etc., must be recruited in the monitoring of the implementation of laws
such as the one just passed. This document equates any force, regardless
of how light or reasonable, with violence, abuse, cruel and degrading
punishment. (It is a fascinating read, 17 pages, at
http://tinyurl.com/fvrwo.)

One may also consider emigration to Australia. NZ passport holders only
need to get on a plane. Once there you can stay as long as you like and
take up employment immediately. There are only some social welfare
benefits that would not kick in till you’ve been there for two years.
Native English speakers can get jobs teaching English in local schools
in many places in the world with few or no qualifications at all. I know
people who have done exactly this in China, South Korea and Turkey.
Those countries are not likely to have such insane legislation passed as
we’ve just had any time soon. The USA and Canada are also possibilities.
The USA has a lot of red tape to cut through to gain residency, but
untold numbers of Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Americans have
been pouring across the border for over 30 years virtually unchecked and
seem to get permanent residency and jobs with little difficulty.

I’ll have more information on Australia in another post soon.

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_Chil
dren_Goodbye_7.pdf

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it – please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

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