Media Report 28/07/06

Sweden has been hailed by Green MP Sue Bradford as an enlightened country where anti-smacking legislation has had a significant impact on reducing the number of child homicides committed by parents. She wants to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, which provides a defence of “reasonable force” to parents, or those in the place of parents, charged with smacking their children for the purpose of corrective (domestic) discipline. She claims Sweden’s child homicide rate is one case every four years, as opposed to one every month in New Zealand (Close Up TV One 19 July).  Her call for the repeal of Section 59 is based on lies, deceit and shoddy reasoning.In Sweden 258 children under the age of 16 years were killed by their own parents between the years 1965 and 1999 – an average rate of about seven child homicides per year – over a 35 year time period when legislation had been in place for some time that banned smacking. These figures are based on a major published study carried out by researchers from the University of Stockholm and reported in a leading Swedish newspaper The Daily News (May 12, 2006). They did not include child homicides committed by persons unknown to the child victims or those where the relationship of killer and victim was unknown.

[Read more…]

Family Integrity says that Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who coming to New Zealand next month, will be the most qualified person ever to speak in New Zealand on the effect of Sweden’s smacking ban on that country’s social fabric.

Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba in Canada has been to New Zealand twice reporting on her research trips to Sweden – all paid for by the Swedish government. Plunket, Barnardos, the Children’s and Families’ Commissioners, UNICEF, EPOCH and others, who were all happy to listen to Dr Durrant, will at last be able to speak face to face with someone who not only lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish, but someone who, as a lawyer there, deals directly with the interface between the law and its application to society. It appears this interface is savagely chewing up many children and families, leaving a trail of permanent damage. But it is all done in the best interests of the child, they say.

[Read more…]

Family Integrity representatives attended the first sitting of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee last Thursday to consider submissions on MP Sue Bradford’s Bill to repeal Section 59.

It was a showcase of the “heavies” lined up in favour of repeal: Save the Children, EPOCH, Familes Commission, UNICEF, Parent.org, Barnardos, Relationship Services, CCS, IHC and the Commissioner for Children. Each of these was totally in favour of repeal, and each was also absolutely opposed to any amendment or attempt to define what constitutes “reasonable force”. It was almost as if they were reading from the same script as each one mentioned the following 8 points:

[Read more…]

Friday, 24 February 2006

On 11 August 2005, Dr A Jack of the Legal Services of the NZ Police, wrote to Mr Craig S. Smith, National Director Family Integrity. His letter, which has been brought to the attention of parliament by Judith Collins MP, is reproduced below with minor editorial additions in square brackets that take account of of Dr Jack’s omissions when referring to s. 59, as well as clarifying some points.

[Read more…]