Skip to main content

It has started

Front page of today's Sunday Star Times: School dobs mum to CYF for smacking son's hand. There were several interesting aspects to this case:

1. The mother says her family feels traumatised after a visit from CYF and later (for a separate incident), by three policemen. The policemen questioned (interrogated?) her child separately. I wonder if that was without a third party witness? She feels she has been labeled a "child abuser" for a simple smack on the hand.

2. The mother was in favour of the changes to s59. Obviously, she bought the line that this law change was around stopping violent abusers from getting off serious abuse by a legal loophole. It wasn't.

3. She did not want to be named because she 'fears losing her children'. There were a few notable cases in Sweden where parents said they had been threatened with losing their children if they made any aspect of the case public. It is likely that those that will speak out are going to be in the minority. We can expect this theme of blackmailing parents by threatening to remove their children for unfavorable public attention will continue here.

4. We can see that it will not take much for people to 'dob in' parents for a minor smack, and this in turn will create the climate of fear. She was dobbed in by a school teacher when the child said he got a smack, and a neighbour. Had the child been 'educated' that a smack is a bad thing, so he thought he could use it to gain attention, or as an excuse, not realizing the implications?

5. Ruth Dyson, Associate Social Development Minister believes the CYF intervention was not a result of the law change, but 'reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse'. Firstly, note how a smack on the hand, that leaves no mark, is equated to child abuse by Dyson. Also, reflect that the law change encourages zealots to report such infractions.

Over time, there will be an increase in cases where the punishment of removing children from basically good families will far outweigh the "crime" of physical discipline. Will we learn of these cases however? Will parents be forced to remain silent for fear of never getting their children back?

Update and related link: Dave at Big News has the Mother's side of the story in the form of a letter to Family First.

11:00PM - As usual, scrubone weighs in with a worthy post on this topic, by reminding us how hard Sue Bradford tried to sell us that this is all about the violent abusers, not a little smack: Bradford attacking the friends of section 59 repeal


  1. It would be nice if National said something about repealing this horrible law before it gets worse.

  2. This is totally ridiculous. We said this would happen when they were trying to push the bill through and of course, it has. It's going to happen more and more, too.
    Sue Bradford is a fool and so is the Government for passing the law.

    What can you do?

    Sign the petition!

    You have until March 2008 to sing a petition so that there will be a referendum of this stupid law with your voting papers in 2008.

    Don't just think about it, do it! Print off some of the petitions and take them to your work or get friends to sign. I've got 8 names on my one already.

  3. Indeed Lucyna it would be nice but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, they are cut from the same cloth as Labour.

    Big government liberals with citizens encouraged to inform on each other giving the brainwashed drones of the state the opportunity to involve themselves in the informees life.

    The revolution in New Zealand is occurring by stealth as piece by piece our civil liberties and freedom are eroded.

  4. If this law isn't repealed, I don't think I could bring kids into the world here in NZ. I'd have to leave and go to Aussie.

  5. I have the full letter that this women wrote to Family First. I have blogged its entirety if anyone is interested

  6. Thanks Dave - I've added a link to the end of the post for interested folks.

  7. Hi guys, great to hear you're all fired up. The anti-parental-authority law is a shocker. It is also merely a step in one horrible path to the socialist's dream...

    Child autonomy, etc...

    Check out

    We are working to get New Zealanders behind tables to collect in the remaining 90,000 odd signatures. We are running, with support from Family First, The Great New Zealand Table Challenge.

    Would love for you guys to get involved if you could. Check the website for more details!

    Have a nice day.

  8. Has anyone noticed that so far the people that have been adversely affected by this bill have been those that didn't think this would affect them? That even supported the bill?

    This is the second general public story that I've heard and then there was something related to this that had to do with a politician. I just can't remember which one.

  9. It was David Cunliffe who
    walloped and bashed .. his kid at the supermarket.

  10. Yes, "a sexual pervert who gets kicks out of hitting children"* - as Sue Bradford so eloquently put it...

    *she said this about the men who were opposed to the repeal of Section 59.

  11. If Trevor Mallard's mum had whacked him when he was a kid, Tau Henare wouldn't have to do it now.

  12. Leaving aside the bollocks about paths to socialist dreams, this is pretty much what we said would happen if the repeal went through, and Clark, Bradford et al said would not.

    So on one level it's nice to have confirmed that Helen Clark is indeed a blatant liar, and that the Labour and National Party caucuses consist almost entirely of cowardly weasels.

  13. Do you know ALL the details of this case? Complaints have been made about this women by more than one party so of coarse CFYS needed to investigate. If they had not and this child was later badly abused or worse, you would be complaining that they had not followed up after complaints were made. Jeff

  14. Yes, two parties. The over-zealous and busy-body neighbor, and the teacher (working for Nanny State).

    This mother is not guilty of child abuse, merely of breaking a pathetic law which was passed against the will of the majority of New Zealanders.

    It's home invasion!

  15. Schools, having lost the battle to maintain discipline are in a sense like German-occupied Norway.

    Teachers are now prepared to be Quislings of the new order, rather than stand up to it as an enemy.

  16. fletch when was the last time a referendum was noticed?
    The only thing that can change this is a change of govt. That is not going to happen next year.

  17. National probably will be the new Government next year. Remember that they voted for the repeal. We need a referendum to pressure National to commit themselves to act according to the result of the referendum - my hope is that the referendum will become an election issue.

  18. I think not anon. It is more likely we will complain when a real case of abuse (not smacking) goes unactioned, and CYFS use the excuse that they were "so busy" investigating the influx of calls over minor smacking incidents.

    Then they'll push to recruit MORE social workers to cope with the "explosion" of abuse cases. Of course, they will continue to treat smacking as abuse, and claim that there are not more cases, but rather, society not tolerating all of the abuse and therefore reporting it more.

    Either way, the real cases will go unmanaged, because who wants to deal with violent parents when you can create really good statistics by hassling basically good parents. And of course, when the real cases hit the papers, a call for greater resources and more "preemptive action" so that Mum and Dad will lose the kid to a foster home whilst a two week investigation to "clear up the confusion, ha ha, no harm done, have to play it safe dont we" state intervention becomes the norm.

    So no anon, not convinced with your line of reasoning.

  19. Dead right Zen, and you can hear Sue Bradford saying this here:

    Interview that TV1 had with Sue Bradford this morning: It is in the latest news and video section.

    She says that the increasing number of reports of abuse is a good thing

    Talk about spin-doctoring!

  20. Oh dear, wake up kiwi's, if you let this go on, like I.M Fletcher said, people won't have children anymore and that will be the start down the road to decline in NZ.

  21. Bill, I hope that National *is* the new Govt next year, but even if National gets more votes than Labour, Labour still has the Progressives, Maori Party, NZ First, and the Greens as possible coalition partners.

    That is a bit worrying.

    Is it still a rule that the party with the most votes get the chance to form a Govt first?

    I hope National wins by a landslide.

  22. Andy, in that same interview (if the link is to the one on Breakfast this morning) she goes on to say that for some reason Kiwi's have this notion that it's OK to hit their children and that any type of hitting is physical abuse.

    What a load of cobblers.

    We're going to end up with a nation of teenagers who can't be restrained because they were never disciplined and they will run wild.

    Sue has no idea what damage she has done to this country - her smacking law *is* child abuse.

  23. Ahah. She really pushed the point that any form of smacking is violence. She talked a lot about parents hitting and beating their children. She seems never to have heard of a loving smack; intended to sting a bit, but do no lasting damage. The lady interviewing her said "but it was just a smack" and Sue said "yes, well it's supposed to be illegal" (paraphrased)

    "Making loving parents criminals is child abuse"

  24. Fletch, national have two hopes of forming a govt after the next election.
    No hope and Bob Hope.
    With the enormous mountain of our money that Cullen will pour down willing kiwi throats and all the legislation that the Beast has carefully steered through (including the soon to be law EFB), and the blatant law breaking carried out with impunity we will see labour scrape in again with the help of the greens and bauble boy.
    The public have clearly demonstrated that the Beast can continue to rule as long as most of the country are getting more than their share in lollies.
    Most people like to believe they will "do the right thing". Unfortunately most people in this country are greedy selfish fucktards, who will enter the polling booth with a crayon in one hand and their wallet in the other.
    NZ is doomed, best get your queensland bolt hole sorted before Clarke brings an exit visa regime to stop people leaving. And I hear you all think "exit visa, surely not Bill?". Think of another way they can stop people leaving that does not veer from the path of their righteous socialist engineering and I will withdraw.

  25. "Unfortunately most people in this country are greedy selfish fucktards, who will enter the polling booth with a crayon in one hand and their wallet in the other."
    As for the exit visa thing, I seem to remember that Klark came back from a visit to Oz claiming that passports had to be introduced for trans-tasman travel at the "insistence" of the Oz government.
    Turned out that she had lobbied for it herself and the media went very quiet about Aussie-bashing after that.

  26. Interestingly, it was just last night that my Kiwi wife said "I'd better get a nursing job lined up in Oz before Clark brings in a law to stop skilled people leaving".

  27. Clark wouldn't stop people from leaving. She'd just impose a very large departure tax.

  28. Do you suppose the paranoid fantasies indulged in above will help convince the casual reader that anti-S59 people are the voice of reason?

  29. PM, if you take a single event or action by the Beast and her party and look at it in isolation then calling other posters comments as paranoid fantasies is a fair comment.
    However when you look at the actions of Jonathon Hunt (or the fat leftie poof as i prefer to call him)and his disciples over the last 30 or so years then you might see a pattern of behaviour that has seriously impacted every person in this country.
    These middle class socialists have followed a path that is leading to a totalitarian state. They have done nothing to enhance or promote personal liberty or freedom and s59 is just a taste of what we can expect when they buy another term next year.

  30. Depends PM. If you were to contrast it against some of the more notably deranged statements issued by Sue Bradford and others of the same ilk, then our reactions might actually be seen reasonable in the context of what lies and distortions were made to push through a vastly unpopular bill.

    But if one needed an excuse to appear a little deranged, then surely the concern we feel over the threat of state enforced persecution of good families might be understandable?

    I think there is a difference between paranoia and actually understanding the relationship between cause and effect.

    The boulder has been pushed down the hill. We don't need it to hit us to be paranoid about the potential for it to hit us (or our fellow citizens) as we consider its trajectory.

  31. That govts spend much of their time enshrining abject foolishness in law is a given, Zen. On the particular foolishness of Bradford's amendment to S59 we're agreed.

    BB, when I was a yoof we were much given to similar pronouncements re the approaching totalitarian regime of Muldoon. Certainly Muldoon had an authoritarian streak that shows the current pale Labour imitation up for what it is, but as it happened Muldoon lost an election and left office without a peep. We were left to ponder the discomforting prospect that we were in fact not heroic defenders of freedom against a clear and present danger, merely people with little of real importance to worry about. Don't find yourself in the same spot when Labour leaves office.

  32. Comparing the muldoon years to the current regime has some similarities but some large and fundamental differences.
    We now have MMP where nutjobs hold the balance of power.
    those nutjobs are;
    Anderton. Will always do what he is told by labour
    greens. even more anti freedom than labour
    winston first. would sell his soul for another term at the trough.
    and last but not least the maori supremacist party who will ask a huge price for their support next time around.
    All these groups are the enemy of freedom.

  33. I'd have to leave and go to Aussie.
    By all means, guys come over here, but if Rudd/Gillard get in in November, you'll be looking at the same thing here. I've got a creepy feeling about Gillard. I think she's lined up to take over from Rudd at some stage and that woman is Attila the Hun. Kind of like your Clark.
    In the meantime, get ready for the narcs to start taking children from non-compliants. As you say, this is just the beginning.

  34. The fundamental differences between Muldoon's time and now are that Clark isn't anything like as authoritarian as Muldoon, and the ruling party's power is greatly reduced by MMP - and yet you see this as making totalitarianism more likely now? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow.

  35. You are drawing a very long bow PM.
    Banning Tom Scott from press conferences and trying to introduce a bill as terrifying as the EFB.
    To quote Samuel L Jackson. "There not even in the same fucking ballpark"
    I think you are playing your designated role as curmudgeonly contrarion a bit hard.

  36. I'll tell you what - when we come home to find Helen Clark on every channel announcing a national wage/price freeze of indefinite duration, starting immediately, I'll grant you that the current govt's in Muldoon's league. Right now they're not even close.

  37. Muldoon cared about money issues, the Labour Government cares more about effecting deep social change. The first is more in your face, but generally survivable in the long term. The latter can be far more insidious and destructive in the long term.

    There is an overlap in consequences (for different reasons), but I don't for a moment underestimate the impact of a Labour/Green/NZF coalition.

  38. Personally, I think Muldoon's efforts to prevent deep social change were more poisonous than anything Labour have gotten up to. The point being, there's a difference between your democratically-elected govt desiring to bring about deep social change that you personally would rather they didn't, and authoritarians setting up a totalitarian state. I believe Bill's and KG's comments failed to recognise that difference.

  39. PM, your premise assumes that Clarke had a mandate for this deep social change.
    Show me the election maifesto that details even a tenth of what these people are trying to do.
    Making Clarke the sole decision maker on who is or is not a terrorist.
    I am sure other bloggers can add to this list.

  40. Muldoon also formed part of a democratically elected government. I don't see how you can say Clark is doing everything democratically (ignoring the poll results of s59 for the moment) when Muldoon wasn't.

    If anything, the Labour government under Clark just got a lot more sophisticated in how it frames its actions.

  41. "Muldoon also formed part of a democratically elected government." Indeed. And as I said, he went quietly and we were left to wonder why we'd indulged in fantasies that he was preparing a totalitarian state. I expect we'll find the same with Clark, when the time comes.

    Re mandates, this is traditionally the country of the three-year elected dictatorship. None of the buggers has ever had a mandate for half what they get up to.

  42. Possibly the best thread in response to a post I have read in a long time. The only pity is the the dismal subject matter.

  43. Didn't Muldoon actually make a bit of fuss about leaving or make the transition deliberately difficult ? Something about denying Lange briefings and the such after the election results, if I remember correctly.

    I don't see how anyone can seriously complain of a totalitarian state, the current government is a little heavy handed and arbitrary in it's political decisions but it's still democratically accountable and bound up by many legal and practical safeguards.

    It's good that there is debate on the EFB now, I hope that it doesn't and certainly doubt it will survive in it's current form. If it does, one can see that it will be damaging to Labour's political position, especially if instigated shortly before an election when it'll not achieve it's desired effect. Beyond that we've always got the Courts and the Press who will probably come down hard on it too.

    In general for the EFB though remember that just because a law can only be expressed initially in language of an uncertain scope, does not mean that we should shy from making such laws and attribute to them the most severe meanings possible.

    Really hate the whole Terrorism determinations thing, might be better in the hands of a High Court Judge as was originally planned.


Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.