SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Reality Check Needed on Shameful Child Abuse says Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

MEDIA RELEASE

In a media release issued  on 10 December 2011, Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, states:

Family First  is rejecting claims by the Children’s Commissioner and others that rising child abuse statistics are ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’, and is repeating its call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into child abuse as a result of continuing ‘tragic’ figures. 

“It is time we stopped ‘marketing’ child abuse statistics and trying to give them a positive spin, under the illusion that we are succeeding. We need a reality check,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “The rates of child abuse have been rocketing up for the last decade – even before the flawed anti-smacking law was passed and the Family Violence awareness campaign began. Between 2003 and 2007 alone, notifications more than doubled from 31,000 to 72,000. The latest statistics give no confidence that children are any safer.”

 “To label our atrocious statistics as ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’ is an insult to the victims. Government groups cannot attribute the increase to greater awareness and better practice. The rates have been increasing markedly well before the public awareness campaigns, and the increase in admissions to Starship Hospital alone are proof that the problem is deterioriating.” [Read more…]

To Train Up a Child – parenting book classified unrestricted

by Leave a Comment

A book teaching parents how to smack, thump and pull their children’s hair was the latest considered for censorship.

The Censorship Compliance Unit assessed the book, written by fundamentalist Christians Michael and Debi Pearl, and decided not to ban or restrict it. 

A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which the office and unit belong to, said while the book was contrary to section 59 of the Crimes Act, which stated a parent or guardian could not use any force on a child “for the purpose of correction”, that wasn’t sufficient reason to justify restricting or banning the 20-year-old book.

The complainant could, however, ask that the Office of Film and Literature Classification also investigate the book’s content.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5664782/More-than-1300-books-banned-by-censor [Read more…]

Anti-Smacking Law Doco Attracts Huge Audience – says Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

In its media release issued today, Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, states that approximately 100,000 NZ’ers have viewed the documentary”My Mummy’s A Criminal” on the anti-smacking law which profiles good families who have been victims of the law. Society members are encouraged to view this documentary for no other reason than to get better informed on this controversial debate that Family First NZ considers (1) highly relevant to the promotion and upholding of good community standards and (2) necessary in order to force politicians to consider amending the ‘anti-smacking law’ .

“We’ve had approximately 35,000 hits on the website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz which hosts the DVD and contains legal advice for parents, almost 10,000 copies of the DVD have been distributed to the public, and views on YouTube have just passed the 5,000 ‘views’ mark,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Considering that this is a 30-minute documentary being hosted on YouTube, this is a very high number of views.” [Read more…]

Government Denying Parents Right to Fair Trial – says Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, says in its latest media release dated 15 July 2011 ……….

It is disturbing that the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill to be passed by the government is denying parents the right to be tried by their peers on crucial family issues. 

 “By removing the right to juries for crimes punishable by less than three years in prison, the Government has not thought carefully about the implications that would have for parents who are prosecuted for minor acts of physical discipline or smacking,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The anti-smacking debate has led to an ill-conceived, clumsy and confusing law and if this new regime is implemented, it would further exasperate good parents who find themselves before the courts because it takes away their choice to choose to be tried before their peers.”

“The new regime also suggests that an assault – including domestic assaults – is a more minor offence, yet a conviction of assault is actually a serious conviction. And it is vital that parents have the right retained to choose to be judged by their peers rather than by a judge.” [Read more…]

Juries Protecting Parents From Politicians – Family First (NZ)

by Leave a Comment

Family First (NZ) Media Release 17 June 2011

Family First NZ [a registered charity with the Charities Commission] says that the anti-smacking law is criminalizing good parents and only the common sense of juries is protecting parents from the actions of politicians. It is challenging Prime Minister John Key to amend the [so-called ‘anti-smacking’] law that he has labeled “a dog’s breakfast”, and introduce the amendment that he lobbied for before he became Prime Minister which decriminalizes reasonable force for the purpose of correction

“A father was acquitted in the Wellington District Court today by a jury which threw out three charges of assault. The judge also threw out another charge of assault which the police had laid because of the father physically restraining the child, saying that it was clearly an act of reasonable force to control a disruptive and unruly child. All these charges related to a dad with no previous involvement with CYF,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The dad was blocked from seeing his son for over a year while awaiting trial, although cynically, the police tempted him with the offer of allowing contact if he pleaded guilty there and then, which would have resulted in him carrying assault convictions on his record.” [Read more…]