SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-Law in Gothenburg, Sweden. President of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org)
One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member’s Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform – and to warn – the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.
Press Release 27 April 2007
If Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking bill’ is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for “correction” purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying “force” for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to “time-out” or “naughty-mat” zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of “correction”. The intention of Bradford’s flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for “correction” by parents or those in the place of parents.
United Future MP Gordon Copeland has recently received a legal opinion he commissioned from Peter McKenzie QC, dealing with the effect of Green MP Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill, on the actions of parents who remove their kids using “reasonable force”, against their will, to “time-out zones” for disruptive and defiant behaviour. He concluded that under the current amendments to the bill, parents would be committing an act of criminal assault for such actions, for which there would be no defence in law when an element of correction was involved. The current law does allow for a defence for parents for the use of “reasonable force” in such situations where they face a charge of “asault”, but only if their actions specifically involve disciplinary correction of the child. This defence would be removed if Bradford’s bill becomes law. Mr Mckenzie’s legal opinion is set out below in full.
Press Release 21/11/06
The Society agrees with the 87% of New Zealanders who hold strongly to the view that parents should be able to smack their children without fear of breaking the law (Today’s on-line Stuff News Poll). Clearly the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, as evidenced by the results of numerous nation-wide polls over the last few years, vehemently oppose Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill that seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Her bill, which was reported back to parliament yesterday from the Justice and Electoral Committee, with significant amendments as well as a bill name change (!); if passed into law, would criminalise every parent and person in the place of a parent, who used any form of force against a child in the context of and/or for the purpose of loving corrective discipline.
Press Release 31/07/06
Non-government child advocate lobby groups in NZ have urged police to confirm that police officers will not arrest parents for smacking their children, should smacking become a criminal offence if Section 59 is removed from the Crimes Act, upon the passage of Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill into law. In effect, what they are doing is asking police to ignore certain criminal offences when smacking is reported to Police by Child Youth and Family (CYF).
Well, it’s not working in Sweden. In 1979, Sweden was the first country to ban smacking.