National seeks soft Labour Party voters
National need those urban voters if they want to win the election, and as part of their lightening raid on the soft Labour party vote they have made another incursion with their sensible positioning on the Anti-smacking law, that people’s hero Sue Bradford has launched. National recognize that they have to soften their image and a well thought out amendment to a bill aimed at protecting children is a smart move.
National gets behind limits on smacking
Parliament appears set to drastically lower the level of force that parents can use against their children even if Green MP Sue Bradford's "anti-smacking" bill is not passed.
National Party MP Chester Borrows has proposed a new amendment to ban all force against children causing more than "transitory and trifling discomfort" - including bruises, welts, skin cuts or broken bones.
"This drastically drops the threshold. It would allow a light smack. It would not allow a heavy blow," Mr Borrows said.
His amendment, signalled five months ago, comes on the same day as a major United Nations report urging nations to prohibit "all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment".
posted by Bomber @ 2:49 pm
3 comments
3 Comments:
Do you seriously believe that S59 of the Crimes Act allows parents to inflict "bruises, welts, skin cuts and broken bones" on children?
Bomber if you really support Sue (half-wit) Bradford's Bill, find the answer to the question: "How many times have adults on trial for child abuse - real child abuse that is, not "smacking" - used S59 as their defence in court.
Don't ignore this question, pretend that it is irrelevant or that you don't understand the question (just like Sue Bradford herself has when asked this in interviews, on numerous occasions) but find out the answer, and then post it!
A TRUE ACCOUNT !!!
Beating considered "reasonable force' by jury
Beating a child with a piece of wood was considered 'reasonable force' by a Hawkes Bay jury last month which acquitted a father charged with assaulting his eight year old son.
The father maintained that he used a piece of 'kindling' 30cms by 2cms to inflict punishment after trying other non-violent means of correcting the boy's behaviour, and stopped when the boy started to cry. The case successfully used Section 59 of the Crimes Act as a defence, in spite of evidence from a paediatrician who described the bruising he saw as caused by considerable force.
"This decision has significant implications for the Government's current stance on Section 59," said Barnardos Chief Executive, lan Calder. "There is now a new benchmark in future cases of parental assault —serious bruising of an eight year old is apparently OK in contemporary New Zealand."
Barnardos has written to Justice Minister Phil Goff, again urging Government to reconsider current policy — whilst non-violent parenting is encouraged, the Government is refusing to repeal Section 59.
"A Government provided defence of 'reasonable force' is now shown to provide a protection for genuinely serious assault against a child," added Mr Calder. "This latest case clearly illustrates how urgent a change is needed."
...
Um - did that answer it for you anon (don't you love how the happy spankers go real quiet after having things like that pointed out to them?)
Post a Comment
<< Home