Marc My Words -- Against Section 59 Propaganda

7 March 2006

Marc My Words -- Against Section 59Propaganda

Political comment ByMarc Alexander

Family is an internalendeavor and an achievement, not an external judgment fromthe ideology of the state.

The onslaught on theKiwi family rolls on unabated. If families manage to survivetheir enslavement by the driftnet of dependency andwelfarism enforced by a punishing taxation rate that sapsthe aspiration of middle New Zealand, then the assault onparental responsibility might just do it. How the hell didwe get to a situation where during an economic boom periodfamilies with one child up to $70,000 and those with 6children up to $150,000 can now claim welfare benefits?

We have Labour politicians shooting their mouth off aboutthe insatiable greed of those who - horror upon horror (!) -Actually want to keep more of what they create through theirlabors, and yet have no qualms about their ownadministration's greed in bilking the public of their moneyto fund another round of vote-buying! They spit out wordslike capitalism and entrepreneurship as if they were a tenthcentury plague about to be bitten into the twenty-firstcentury rump of societies' march to a socialist utopiadistilled by the great minds of comrades Clark and Cullen.

Now we have to contend with the nauseatingly ill-thoughtSue Bradford's Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justificationfor Child Discipline) Amendment Bill which passed its firstreading last year. The intent of the Bill is to repealsection 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and make physical parentaldiscipline a criminal offence. In other words it will removethe ability of parents to parent and criminalize those whoexert a physical response no matter how appropriate it maybe under the circumstances.

Much of the debatesurrounding the issue has focused whether it is right togive parents a defense against possible charges resultingfrom the use of physical force to discipline their child. Inreality its application is much wider. Sue Bradford and herbusybody interventionist acolytes desperately want to applythis kind of 'feel good' interventionist balm on the cankerof child abuse. However, many who support this nonsense -and who genuinely believe it to be the magic bullet thatwill rid our country of child abuse - are likely to beterribly disappointed. Most, I suggest, have not carefullyread the relevant legislation. So here itis:

***********

Crimes Act 1961

PART 3 - MATTERS OF JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE

59.Domestic discipline

(1) Every parent of a child and,subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person inthe place of the parent of a child is justified in usingforce by way of correction towards the child, if the forceused is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) Thereasonableness of the force used is a question offact.

***********

Now, whatconstitutes reasonable?

Many have argued that as itstands, the legislation hands parents the right to spank, orto abuse (and there's a huge difference), but it is reallymuch more than that. To yank a child from the road when indanger from traffic is using reasonable force. So is usingrestraint on your twelve year old to prevent self-harming.What about forcing your methamphetamine filled teenager fromcommitting violence, suicide etc? There are many situationswhere not to apply reasonable force might itself constituteabuse.

So, will the repeal of section 59 criminalize theparent? You bet. Removing section 59 will do nothing toprevent child abuse. Lillybing, James Whakaruru, DelceliaWitika and many others did not die because loving parentsused reasonable force; they died because of extreme abusethat makes a mockery of parental obligation. What of RockyWano, 15, who was beaten to death by his father? Confusing'reasonable corrective discipline' by parents who take theircommitment to parent seriously, with abuse such as theprevious examples, is a not only a slap in the face of allgood parents but is simply an ideological intrusion thatcreates a divide between parents and the children theychoose to have.

Besides, the legal defense provided bysection 59 is very limited in its application. Theprescription of 'reasonable' precludes abuse. If judges havegot it wrong in the past then perhaps there is need toclarify what reasonable means. Frankly, how anyone couldmisrepresent a slap on the hand to prevent a tot fromtouching a heated element as akin to stubbing cigarettes ona child's back or being hurled against a wall is beyondme.

Child abuse is already illegal and isn't protected bysection 59 anyway. If the likes of Sue Bradford really didwant to do something about child abuse then lets 'up' thepenalties. Let's throw child abusers into prison for aminimum of 20 years hard labor and for the term of naturallife for the very worst offenders - if that's what SueBradford would suggest, then I'll be marching beside her allthe way!

But no.her real intent is to bring thegovernment into the relationship between a parent and childin the most unsupportive way possible - by making thempotential legal adversaries. Bradford may claim that herintention is not to criminalize caring parents for so-called'trivial' smacking but the repeal of section 59 will implythat it will constitute an assault. Parents will have nolegislative defense.

Another aspect of the debatewhich has attracted scant attention is that Sue Bradfords'Bill says nothing about the use of 'reasonable' force inother circumstances. Consider section60:

***********

Crimes Act 1961

60Discipline on ship or aircraft

(1) The master or officerin command of a ship or the pilot in command of an aircraftis justified in using and ordering the use of force for thepurpose of maintaining good order and discipline onboard hisship or aircraft if he believes on reasonable grounds thatthe use of force is necessary, and if the force used isreasonable in the circumstances.

***********

Why is Bradford not applying the same logichere? Why are strangers exempt from her intended restrictionof applying reasonable force but parents subject to it? Ifthe intent is to stamp out abuse then surely we should applythe same consistency in all cases? Here we see not only aflaw in Bradford's incoherent concern, but an act ofmisplaced interference in her real target: the Kiwifamily.

Of course other nations have gone down the pathadvocated by Bradford and presages what we might expecthere. For example, in Sweden smacking a disobedient child iscalled "child abuse". A problem arises because theanti-smacking law is an imperfect law. Unlike the provisionsof the Penal Code, it doesn't state, "If you smack yourchild you will be arrested, charged, prosecuted andsentenced to prison and your child will be taken from you".Nevertheless those are the prospects facing a parent whosmacks their child.

The parent risks prosecution, finesor a prison sentence and the child can be removed from thehome and placed in care. Sadly there is a double standard ifthe child is ill-treated in a foster home. No one cares, ordoes anything about it, because the child is supposedly inthe safe care of the State! Tragically the same situation istrue in New Zealand.

On June 17, 2002 the Dominion ran areport showing that in the previous three years more than150 children had been removed from State foster parentsafter being physically, sexually or emotionally abused bythem. Details issued by the Department of Child, Youth andFamily Services under the Official Information Act show thatbetween July 1999 and June 2000, 61 children were removedfrom their foster parents' care after sufferingsubstantiated instances of abuse. These are kids who wereremoved from their original families on the premise thatthey would be safer in State care!

Fifty-two children wereremoved from foster care between July 2000 and June 2001,and 45 between July 2001 and March 2002. That constitutes arate of abuse of children under 17 twice the rate occurringin the general population. Those who claim that no policewould prosecute a clearly sensible application of the law(as a result of the repeal of section 59), miss the point -some over-zealous 24 year old idealistic social worker withthe best of intentions would!

What Bradford and hermisguided supporters for the repeal of section 59 would giveeffect to be to criminalize decent parents by legallyrebranding their application of reasonable force as abuse,and providing the state with the grounds to intercede -often with tragic consequences.

Over the Tasman therehave been a number of disturbing allegations involving avariety of abuse claims of children in State care. A NewSouth Wales Royal Commission uncovered an appalling networkof pedophiles in the mid -1990s. South Australia is thelatest state to launch an inquiry into the abuse of childrenin its care, following the weekend arrests of allegedpedophiles, and a new probe into claims that the death of aboy in a Catholic orphanage in the 1960s had been coveredup.

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson told Parliamentrecently that Police were investigating another 585allegations reported since the State Government removed thestatute of limitations on cases of child abuse.

Widespreadabuse of children in State and Church institutions emergedfrom the 1999 Commission of Inquiry in Queensland; and fouryears later former Governor-General Peter Hollingworth wasforced from office by a scandal over his handling of abuseclaims when he was Archbishop of Brisbane. In many cases thebiggest abuse of our children is not by parents but by thestate.

It is easy to be cynical about the latest attemptto see the removal of section 59 as a band aid reaction tothe UNICEF figures of 2003 that show New Zealand had thethird-highest rate of child abuse deaths among 26 OECDcountries, claiming that our Government has still not doneenough. As terrible as it is, we must face the reality thatour child-abuse death rate is among the highest in thedeveloped world.

No one in their right mind would wantchildren to be abused and parents to 'get-away-with-it'. Buthow we deal with child abuse in New Zealand has nothing todo with section 59, and everything to do with a disparitybetween parental responsibility and abuse of children. Tocriminalize the majority of parents in order to deal with aproportionately small group of truly 'evil parents' ispatently absurd.

I have no doubt that the same people whowant the symbolism of removing section 59 (and sleepingbetter, knowing they've rid the world of another of life'sills), will be at the front of the queue tut-tut ting aboutthe increase in wayward kids in a few years time. "Where arethe parents? What about their responsibility?" they will cryin utter futility.

If we want parents to be heldresponsible for how their kids turn out, why are we takingaway one of the means by which some parents can parent? Ifit is child abuse we want to target, then let's stop wastingtime attacking good parents and do more to prevent abusehappening in the first place. For goodness sake, section 59does not make spanking mandatory nor does it make abuse OK!Let's start treating those parents as the criminals theysurely are, with meaningful sentences.

It's about timethose politicians who know least about having children camedown to earth and listened.

ENDS

THIS ISSUE Lead NZ News NZ Politics World News FeaturesComment & Opinion Paul Buchanan on Cold War Communism and World Peace - In 1990, somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, someone in the Joint Chiefs of Staff is reputed to have said that the United States would rue the day that the Berlin Wall fell. At least the Communists running the Soviet Union and its allies shared the logics of conventional and nuclear deterrence that preserved the relative peace of the 45-year-old Cold War. See... Paul Buchanan: When Communists Look Good

Motornet Takes Directions From A Beamer - 'Please take the next exit on your left. Then, turn right in 200 metres, says the modulated voice of BMW s satellite navigation system. Failing to follow instructions does nothing to raise a non-automated response. Even a complete 360 will see the GPS based system pause for the briefest of seconds before re-plotting the correct course, and re-issuing instructions. It s really quite frustrating There s an unflappable quality in many German cars and the new BMW 330i is no exception. See... MOTORNET: On Your Command - The BMW 330i

Suzan Mazur: Spinning the Returned Euphronios - The battle for ownership of the Euphronios vase illustrates perfectly how the New York Times publishing family fools only itself. Sales of the newspaper deservedly continue to decline as the people responsible for putting the Times out think they can get away with hoodwinking the public. See... Suzan Mazur: The Italy-Met Euphronios Accord?

David Slack compares broadband deals and oranges - Business New Zealand waded into the Broadband debate yesterday. Quoting from the release: "Business NZ has called for a more factually based argument over broadband access." ... Coverage, so far, of their contribution has been a little short on an actual comparison of the oranges, apples and lemons in question, which of course is what you want in a more factually based argument, so I asked Business NZ for a copy of the data. See... Public Address 23/02/06 - All you can eat, assuming you're not very hungry

MORE COMMENTARY:UQ Wire: The Secret History Of Mohamed Atta Public Address 24/02/06 - Totally Hot Mary Pitt: Walkin' Up On A Jackass Martin LeFevre: The 'Riddle of Man Norma Sherry: The Big "A" - As in Alzheimer's Swanson: Sweat Shop Workers Tour US Colleges Marc My Words -- Against Section 59 Propaganda "Democracy" To Justify Invasion And Mass Murder Russ Wellen: The Bourse Conspiracy John Bishop: TV Debases The Viewers Dubai and The Bush Dynasty Deal with the Devil A New Era Of Surveillance & Military Police In Oz John Bishop's Communications Line - 23 Feb 2006 Ernest Partridge: Perception is Reality Green Left Weekly: Latin America Revolts Against The Empire G C Fraser: Israeli Defense Minister -Palestine "Axis of Evil" Evelyn Pringle: Psych Drugs - Doctors Serve As Middle-Man Pushers Rodríguez Santos: The Indocumentados Of Today Province of Michigan: A Modest Proposal,

CLICK HERE FOR MORE RECENT COMMENTARYJOBS: The best are @ SEEKTarget 110 000 ConsumersNZ REAL ESTATE OnlineTRAVEL: Packages & Deals!Book Cheap FLIGHTS OnlineRETIREMENT CalculatorMORTGAGE Calculators #this_text { text-align: left; vertical-align: middle;}#this_text a { font-family: "Verdana", sans-serif; font-size: 80%; color: #943517; text-decoration: underline;}#this_text a:hover { font-family: "Verdana", sans-serif; font-size: 80%; color: blue; text-decoration: underline;}The best JOBS are @ SEEK THE WIRES Scoops Parliament Politics World Business Sci-Tech Culture Education Regional Health SEARCH _m1svt='');

Source: scoop

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.