Experience Shows Anti-Spanking Laws do More Harm than Good
LK
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062301.html
New Zealanders petition to reverse anti-spanking bill
By Tim Waggoner
WELLINGTON, NZ, June 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A police review
shows that New Zealand's new anti-spanking law has not reduced the
number of physical abuse cases against children, but it has deterred
good parents from properly disciplining their children. The report is
the result of a three month review that took place directly after the
passing of the bill and a separate three month review which was
initiated six months later.
New Zealanders are today presenting parliament with a petition calling
for the law to be struck down.
Family First NZ National Director Bob McCoskrie explained that the
police review, which shows an almost 300% jump in the number of
parents being investigated for minor acts of physical discipline since
the law was passed, indicates that there has been almost no reduction
in actual child abuse incidents.
"The worst aspect is that the number of actual child assaults are now
at almost the same rate as before the law change," he said.
McCoskrie also observed, "When the author of the law change Sue
Bradford tells us that the law change was never intended to deal with
the epidemic of child abuse and child violence, it is quite obvious
that this law change was not about solving a problem - it was about
telling parents how to raise their children. And parents who are
already doing a great job have responded by saying 'we're doing fine
thanks.'"
The director of Family First criticized the law for wasting police
resources. "What this particular review shows is that police resources
are being wasted on attending and investigating smacking and minor
acts of physical discipline, yet less than 5% are serious enough to
warrant prosecution," he said.
"We are now also seeing clear evidence of good parents being
prosecuted in courts for correcting their children in ways that were
promised would not be caught under the new law."
He concluded, "In other words, the anti-smacking law has failed to
stem the tide of child abuse, but has targeted many good parents and
grandparents with the trauma and fear of police investigation and CYF
involvement. Parents will feel very nervous reading this report,
knowing the increasing level of investigations for minor acts."
New Zealand's anti-spanking bill was first passed by parliament in May
2007. The bill essentially tells parents that they are never
justified in using force to discipline their children, having
eliminated from the Crimes Act the right for a parent to use
"reasonable force" when correcting a child.
The bill was widely opposed, which delayed its passage for two years,
until an amendment was proposed that gave police the power to deem
some complaints against parents as insignificant. The bill eventually
passed after both political parties "whipped" their MPs into voting in
favor of it.
Family First NZ is presenting the petition against the law to the New
Zealand parliament today, invoking authorities to reverse the law.
"The massive response to the petition, combined with recent polls
showing 85% support for changing the law, demonstrates just how
unpopular the law is. The petition is a simple plea from New
Zealanders - don't criminalize the actions of good parents who are
trying to raise law-abiding and productive citizens of the future,"
said McCoskrie.
ivan...@yahoo.ca
Note that this article originates with LifeSite -- a rabidly
Christian-fundamentalist and anti-abortion, anti-women's-
rights
cabal widely known for its hatred and fear of both women and
children and its hostility to human rights of all kinds.
Note also that the headline is a stone lie -- "experience"
has never shown that NOT hitting cildren "does more harm
than good."
Ignore these motherfuckers. I'm betting the New Zealand
Parliament will.
-IG
--
People who hit children -- or speak in favour of hitting
children -- fall into one of three categories: incompetent
parents, brtual assholes or perverts. -Ivan Gowch
Greegor
ones' own kids in all 50 states.
High Courts have actually ruled that
it is NOT the job of Child Protection
agencies to regulate spanking to make
sure it does not cross legal limits.
CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
Dan Sullivan
> In the United States, it is STILL legal to spank
> ones' own kids in all 50 states.
This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins' daughter was removed, greg.
You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
> High Courts have actually ruled that
> it is NOT the job of Child Protection
> agencies to regulate spanking to make
> sure it does not cross legal limits.
Which High Courts?
> CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
Do you really think a parent spanking a child in public WON'T be
sufficient cause for a CPS investigation in any state?
Greegor
G > ones' own kids in all 50 states.
DS > This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins'
DS > daughter was removed, greg.
DS > You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
G > High Courts have actually ruled that
G > it is NOT the job of Child Protection
G > agencies to regulate spanking to make
G > sure it does not cross legal limits.
DS > Which High Courts?
US 9th, for starters.
Wasn't that posted in this newsgroup already?
G > CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
DS > Do you really think a parent spanking
DS > a child in public WON'T be sufficient
DS > cause for a CPS investigation in any state?
Not if the parents drive away in a shiny Escalade!
And what exactly are you arguing for, Dan?
Are you arguing that parents should not spank
because they should live in TERROR of how
some bureaucratic morons might second guess them?
Y'know, Dan, from time to time it seems
like you want Americans to live in fear
of the agencies like we're in the old USSR
or Nazi Germany or something.
When it's pointed out that spanking is LEGAL
you seem to advocate that people live in terror
or hide from agencies that operate OUTSIDE
of the law.
All is klaar herr kommmissar?
Dan Sullivan
> G > In the United States, it is STILL legal to spank
> G > ones' own kids in all 50 states.
>
> DS > This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins'
> DS > daughter was removed, greg.
> DS > You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
>
> G > High Courts have actually ruled that
> G > it is NOT the job of Child Protection
> G > agencies to regulate spanking to make
> G > sure it does not cross legal limits.
>
> DS > Which High Courts?
>
> US 9th, for starters.
Cite the ruling.
> Wasn't that posted in this newsgroup already?
If you don't know, why should I?
> G > CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
>
> DS > Do you really think a parent spanking
> DS > a child in public WON'T be sufficient
> DS > cause for a CPS investigation in any state?
>
> Not if the parents drive away in a shiny Escalade!
Do you really think that's true, greg?
> And what exactly are you arguing for, Dan?
> Are you arguing that parents should not spank
> because they should live in TERROR of how
> some bureaucratic morons might second guess them?
Are you arguing that parents should ignore the possibility of a
lengthy and destructive CPS investigation and spank their children in
public?
> Y'know, Dan, from time to time it seems
> like you want Americans to live in fear
> of the agencies like we're in the old USSR
> or Nazi Germany or something.
You have nothing to fear, greg, because you don't have children.
> When it's pointed out that spanking is LEGAL
> you seem to advocate that people live in terror
> or hide from agencies that operate OUTSIDE
> of the law.
People with children need to consider what might happen if their
families come under the scrutiny of CPS.
You claim you didn't abuse Lisa Watkins' daughter, yet how many years
was she without the custody of her little girl?
Greegor
G > ones' own kids in all 50 states.
DS > This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins'
DS > daughter was removed, greg.
DS > You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
G > High Courts have actually ruled that
G > it is NOT the job of Child Protection
G > agencies to regulate spanking to make
G > sure it does not cross legal limits.
DS > Which High Courts?
G > US 9th, for starters.
DS > Cite the ruling.
Dan, You haven't denied it.
So you didn't risk anything, not even a bit of your ego.
You'll just play "Larry Loophole" when I come
up with the proof, and you'll say you never
denied that it was true, you just asked for the cite.
Isn't that your game, Dan?
You argue without committing yourself to anything.
Golly, WHO do we know who argues like that?
G > Wasn't that posted in this newsgroup already?
DS > If you don't know, why should I?
You challenged it, sort of, in your usual "Larry Loophole" way.
But according to you, I am gutless.
G > CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
DS > Do you really think a parent spanking
DS > a child in public WON'T be sufficient
DS > cause for a CPS investigation in any state?
G > Not if the parents drive away in a shiny Escalade!
DS > Do you really think that's true, greg?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO think that's true, Dan.
G > And what exactly are you arguing for, Dan?
G > Are you arguing that parents should not spank
G > because they should live in TERROR of how
G > some bureaucratic morons might second guess them?
DS > Are you arguing that parents should ignore the possibility of a
DS > lengthy and destructive CPS investigation and spank their
children in
DS > public?
G > Y'know, Dan, from time to time it seems
G > like you want Americans to live in fear
G > of the agencies like we're in the old USSR
G > or Nazi Germany or something.
DS > You have nothing to fear, greg, because you don't have children.
Distracting from the POINT again, Dan?
G > When it's pointed out that spanking is LEGAL
G > you seem to advocate that people live in terror
G > or hide from agencies that operate OUTSIDE
G > of the law.
DS > People with children need to consider what might happen if their
DS > families come under the scrutiny of CPS.
DS >
DS > You claim you didn't abuse Lisa Watkins' daughter,
DS > yet how many years was she without
DS > the custody of her little girl?
So, without answering directly, what you are
advocating is that parents IN THE USA should
live in fear of an agency acting OUTSIDE of the law.
Why can't you just confirm that about your position, Dan?
You know, Ivan has taken a position against
spanking, but we still don't know whether
he is so far against spanking that he supports
imposing that on OTHERS through the use
of a campaign of fear.
While we see Ivan as unAmerican in
his views on Iraq, just how unAmerican
is it for you to encourage parents to live in
fear of violating spanking laws that DO NOT EXIST?
Which thing is more unAmerican, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> G > In the United States, it is STILL legal to spank
> G > ones' own kids in all 50 states.
>
> DS > This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins'
> DS > daughter was removed, greg.
> DS > You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
>
> G > High Courts have actually ruled that
> G > it is NOT the job of Child Protection
> G > agencies to regulate spanking to make
> G > sure it does not cross legal limits.
>
> DS > Which High Courts?
>
> G > US 9th, for starters.
>
> DS > Cite the ruling.
>
> Dan, You haven't denied it.
You haven't cited it, greg, so I don't know what you're referring to
specifically.
> So you didn't risk anything, not even a bit of your ego.
> You'll just play "Larry Loophole" when I come
> up with the proof, and you'll say you never
> denied that it was true, you just asked for the cite.
>
> Isn't that your game, Dan?
>
> You argue without committing yourself to anything.
I haven't read the citation so how can I commit myself one way or the
other?
> Golly, WHO do we know who argues like that?
>
> G > Wasn't that posted in this newsgroup already?
>
> DS > If you don't know, why should I?
>
> You challenged it, sort of, in your usual "Larry Loophole" way.
>
> But according to you, I am gutless.
You're far worse than that, greg.
> G > CPS agencies are NOT the "spanking police".
>
> DS > Do you really think a parent spanking
> DS > a child in public WON'T be sufficient
> DS > cause for a CPS investigation in any state?
>
> G > Not if the parents drive away in a shiny Escalade!
>
> DS > Do you really think that's true, greg?
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO think that's true, Dan.
You're a total moron, greg.
> G > And what exactly are you arguing for, Dan?
> G > Are you arguing that parents should not spank
> G > because they should live in TERROR of how
> G > some bureaucratic morons might second guess them?
>
> DS > Are you arguing that parents should ignore the possibility of a
> DS > lengthy and destructive CPS investigation and spank their
> children in
> DS > public?
>
> G > Y'know, Dan, from time to time it seems
> G > like you want Americans to live in fear
> G > of the agencies like we're in the old USSR
> G > or Nazi Germany or something.
>
> DS > You have nothing to fear, greg, because you don't have children.
>
> Distracting from the POINT again, Dan?
You can't lead by example.
In fact your experience spanking a child, which wasn't your own, cost
the mother custody for how many years, greg?
Seven plus?????
> G > When it's pointed out that spanking is LEGAL
> G > you seem to advocate that people live in terror
> G > or hide from agencies that operate OUTSIDE
> G > of the law.
>
> DS > People with children need to consider what might happen if their
> DS > families come under the scrutiny of CPS.
> DS >
> DS > You claim you didn't abuse Lisa Watkins' daughter,
> DS > yet how many years was she without
> DS > the custody of her little girl?
>
> So, without answering directly, what you are
> advocating is that parents IN THE USA should
> live in fear of an agency acting OUTSIDE of the law.
Everybody should be aware of what CPS can do.
Ron
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12e2e4a7-9e49-4715...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>G > In the United States, it is STILL legal to spank
> G > ones' own kids in all 50 states.
>
> DS > This is one of the reasons Lisa Watkins'
> DS > daughter was removed, greg.
> DS > You spanked her and she wasn't your daughter.
>
> G > High Courts have actually ruled that
> G > it is NOT the job of Child Protection
> G > agencies to regulate spanking to make
> G > sure it does not cross legal limits.
>
> DS > Which High Courts?
>
> US 9th, for starters.
> Wasn't that posted in this newsgroup already?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, located in San
Francisco, has been overturned on appeal more than any other court in the
nation. Taking what the 9th says as "factual" would be a grave error for
anyone, much less anyone here.
Ron
Greegor
> Francisco, has been overturned on appeal more than any other court in the
> nation. Taking what the 9th says as "factual" would be a grave error for
> anyone, much less anyone here.
Ron, Are you saying the Ninth is too liberal or too conservative?
I thought they were LIBERAL, which would tend to make
them more against all spanking than CONSERVATIVE courts.
And yet they decided IN FAVOR of spanking!
How could such a liberal court decide in favor of that?
How do you think a more CONSERVATIVE court
would have ruled differently on the same issue?
Dan Sullivan
> > The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, located in San
> > Francisco, has been overturned on appeal more than any other court in the
> > nation. Taking what the 9th says as "factual" would be a grave error for
> > anyone, much less anyone here.
>
> Ron, Are you saying the Ninth is too liberal or too conservative?
>
> I thought they were LIBERAL, which would tend to make
> them more against all spanking than CONSERVATIVE courts.
>
> And yet they decided IN FAVOR of spanking!
Their decision stated they were IN FAVOR OF SPANKING???
YOU wrote "High Courts have actually ruled that it is NOT the job of
Child Protection agencies to regulate spanking to make sure it does
not cross legal limits."
That's far from "IN FAVOR of spanking."
> How could such a liberal court decide in favor of that?
Prove they're in favor of spanking.
Greegor
Dan, Are you picking at word choices or the issues themselves?
How small are you?
Dan Sullivan
Apparently you don't want to explain the discrepancies in what you've
said.
You and piggy make quite the pair.