Facts from ‘By Fear and Fallacy’

In 2006, Mr. Michael Drake, Principal of Carey College, Auckland, produced a booklet called By Fear and Fallacy. This was before the amendment to Section 59 of the Crimes Act was passed, and yet its current relevance is immense. It is well researched, comprehensive, and written with passion and from personal experience.

Some excerpts:

. . . to withhold correction from children who do wrong is to perpetrate an abuse that will have far-reaching consequences for the morality and stability of our society

A biblical family is made of husband and wife in life-long monogamous covenant, having primary responsibility for the nurture of children God may give them. God has embedded in families relationships of authority and submission, care and dependence, against which autonomy, by its very definition, rebels. Those family relationships cannot be shared with the extended family or community, albeit the extended family and community have an important role in the nurture of children

Fellow blogger, Scrubone, has put it up in the Internet. Click here to read.

Good videos explaining why you need to vote NO

I liked the video on scrubone’s post of Renton Maclachlan explaining the upcoming referendum. I soon found two more videos by Mr Maclachlan on this subject. I would like to share all three videos with my readers.

The first video points out the vital difference between the wording of the original Section59 and the wording of the amendment.

The second video is a comedy satire where Mr Maclachlan interviews Dennis Morris, Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes vote campaign.

Vote No, please

http://www.voteno.org.nz/index.htm

Between July 31 and August 21, people in New Zealand will participate in a referendum. The question for the referendum is:

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

This is New Zealand, and so sadly this question is not as rhetorical as it sounds.  Some will actually vote Yes.  Even if a resounding majority vote No, there is no compulsion on the government to change the bill. Despite this, I hope that we will see a strong and sensible message sent to the government from the people of New Zealand.

When we say “Anti-smacking bill” or Sue Bradford’s bill, what are we talking about? We are talking about the amendment made in 2007 to Section 59, a part of the 1961 Crimes Act in New Zealand. Before we read the amendment,  let us see what the old Section 59 stated before Ms. Bradford’s  amendment.

Before the amendment, Section 59 was simple and beautiful and read as follows:

“Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.”

The left-wing Green Party felt that Section 59 went against Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This article stated:

“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Green Party felt that all smacking amounted to child abuse and degraded the child. Ms Bradford said that the old Section 59 “legitimised serious force” and “harsh physical discipline”. This is a lie.

The original wording of Section 59 was simple, adequate, clear and effective. It clearly laid down that corrective force used on a child had to be reasonable. By its very description, excessive force was not reasonable and therefore was illegal.

While we disagree with this conclusion, I want to state as emphatically as I can, that as Christians, we abhor child abuse. We are saddened to hear of violence against children who are physically beaten and kicked, not to speak of being subjected to long periods of verbal and emotional abuse. We would like to join hands with other New Zealanders and put an end to such violence against children.

But abuse and good parental correction are two different things. Good parents correct their children. Bad parents abuse their children. In painting both kinds of parents with the same broad brush, good parents have been made criminals. Meanwhile abuse continues unabated.

When we say “Anti-smacking bill” or Sue Bradford’s bill, what are we talking about? We are talking about the amendment made in 2007 to Section 59, a part of the 1961 Crimes Act in New Zealand. Before we read the amendment, let us see what the old Section 59 stated before Ms. Bradford’s amendment.

Before the amendment, Section 59 was simple and beautiful and read as follows:

“Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.”

The left-wing Green Party felt that Section 59 went against Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This article stated:

“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Green Party felt that all smacking amounted to child abuse and degraded the child. Ms Bradford said that the old Section 59 “legitimised serious force” and “harsh physical discipline”. This is a lie.

The original wording of Section 59 was simple, adequate, clear and effective. It clearly laid down that corrective force used on a child had to be reasonable. By its very description, excessive force was not reasonable and therefore was illegal.

While we disagree with this conclusion, I want to state as emphatically as I can, that as Christians, we abhor child abuse. We are saddened to hear of violence against children who are physically beaten and kicked, not to speak of being subjected to long periods of verbal and emotional abuse. We would like to join hands with other New Zealanders and put an end to such violence against children.

But abuse and good parental correction are two different things. Good parents correct their children. Bad parents abuse their children. In painting both kinds of parents with the same broad brush, good parents have been made criminals. Meanwhile abuse continues unabated.

The Green party’s Sue Bradford came up with the ammendment, that I will only link to, because it looks as messy as it really is and would instantly render my post confusing.Please click here to read the substituted section 59.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this would like to vote No, and most of them will. But there are some who favour the bill as being indispensible, though far from ideal,  given the situation we find ourselves in.  Here are the points they offer and my thoughts.

1. This bill could help some families make a culture change and not beat their children to death:

“I see some cultures using excessive smacking as the norm.  I hope that the debate may make them think that there are other ways. But maybe thats wishful thinking. I think its a culture change we need, and I think the law just highlights it, for lack of a better tool. I would vote Yes, until I/they can think of some better way to get the message across  ‘ to use less violence’ on kids.”

2. This bill could help pin child abusers down:

Discussing this subject with another friend, I pointed out that there was a world of difference between a smack as part of loving parental correction and child abuse. I suggested that surely other laws in place against abuse and violence were sufficient to reel in child abusers. But he felt that without a bill worded as obnoxiously as this,  “any above-average lawyer can get around them.”

Contrary to what many people think, the original Section 59 was very effective. Most cases, where Section 59 (original version) was used as a defence, ended with convictions, and even those who were acquitted came under the eye of CYF. So the old Section 59 was working, and working well.

Some people felt that the term “reasonable force” was ambiguous and made it easier for child abusers to use the old Section 59 as a defence. I wish to point out that: Sue Bradford’s amendment continues to use the term “reasonable force” without any clarification

3. This bill does not target good parents

“. . . and, what good parent has been prosecuted by the law?”  Well, the truth is that many normal families have been criminalised and traumatised by the law.  Click here to read about some of them.

Knives can kill; ban them

Embryonic cloning and embryonic cloning

I would like to point my regular readers to an post entitled ‘9 Things the Media Messed Up’ about Obama’s Stem Cell Announcement.

Obama supposedly said:

“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”

This is not as straightforward as it sounds because he speaks only of “reproductive cloning,” not mentioning the other kind of cloning—Research cloning—which allows for a child to be cloned, used in research, and killed within a few weeks.
By the way, I quite like this blogger scrubone.

Fertillized human eggs are human in North Dakota

‘North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status’ reads the title of a story in foxnews.com dated 18 February 2009

A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state. . .

The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

Way to go.

Super Gold adventure

Sharing an email I received yesterday that shows that children of God can have fun too, and even if they are over 70 years old.

How are things with you?  Are you busy at work?  Just thought I would send you a little e-mail to brighten your day – if it needs brightening!! I would feel very miserable having to go to work when the weather is so nice like this.  When I was working and it was school holidays, I always had time off, because my children were younger, of course.  So we could go out for the day somewhere and be back in time for dinner, when Warrick came home.

On Tuesday, my friend and I had a day out together.  It took quite a bit of planning, but its been in my mind for some time.  We took a ferry to Waiheke.  It was lovely.  We had a bus ride and had a good look at as much of the island as we could.  It is very pretty with lots of bays and beautiful beaches.  We had lunch there, then caught the ferry back to Auckland, then a train out to the West, and home here for dinner (which I had prepared the night before) and then we took her home later in the evening.

It was a long day for “two old ladies”, but she really enjoyed it.  She is a driver, so has never been on any public transport before.  She lives over on the North Shore, so we don’t manage to see her as often as I would like.  All the travelling was done with our Super Gold Cards, so it was all free!!  (Otherwise we wouldn’t have been able to afford it!!)  But it was a day to remember, and now that we’ve done it once maybe we will attempt other interesting trips.

Better let you get on with some work.  Bye for now.
Beryl-Auntie-Beryl.

Tough times financially

We hear terms like ‘economic downturn’ and ‘recession’ here in New Zealand. But many of us have not yet started to feel the pinch. But this comfortable situation can change in a moment.

Here is a word of encouragement from John Piper about how Christians ought to face financial problems.

My friend David Porter has also posted a piece related to this called “Worried about the Economy and Recession?” introducing Dr. Steve Lawson’s series on “God’s Sovereignty over America.”

The Religious Affections: Part III (Point 12b)

My thoughts (and quotes) from the twelfth point of Part III

This is the last of 12 points Edwards offers from the scriptures to differentiate between true and false religious affections. Tim Challies, who is coordinating this reading, has split this point into two parts, because it is very lengthy. This is the second.

[xii] Gracious and holy affections have their exercise and fruit in Christian practice.

[In other words, religious affections in a genuine Christian result in holiness and right Christian practice.]

Abortion and Euthansia

Am I missing something here; is it pro-life week or something? I clicked these three links in my blog.

Laurie’s blog, Beauty for Ashes,  has a post called Life that took me to another post Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen speaks again.

The latest post on David’s blog, Boomer in the Pew, is Baroness Warnock: Demented People have a “Duty to Die.”

Clicking on Today’s Question in the creationontheweb.com site took me to Human Life Questions and Answers—Abortion and Euthanasia

God defend New Zealand

New Zealanders talk about the weather a lot. But nowadays there’s less of small talk because this is election year.  Oh, we do follow our antipodean fellows from down under, because like someone said, “When America sneezes, everyone catches a cold.” But we would not give up speaking about our wonderful weather, especially when summer is just coming on, to discuss American politics. We ourselves are in the middle of election time. In fact we are in the last month leading up to the elections.

Helen Clark, heading the Labour party has been at the helm of government for three terms, which makes a total of nine years. In this period, legalising prostitution,  many attempts at social engineering, and a soft approach to crime, stand out. More recently, the anti-smacking bill and the Electoral Finance bill (that is seen by many as an affront to free speech and the right to campaign)  were passed. The traditional family has been under fire, and political correctness has reached ridiculous levels. Violent crime is on the increase, and the country’s welfare programs continue to bleed tax payers and feed many undeserving people.

The other major party in New Zealand is National whose leader is John Key. If the Labour party must lose, then National has to win the elections. But this does not necessarily mean that we must vote National, because National will need to form a coalition with other parties, and those who want National to form the government, may consider other minor parties that National is likely to consider as a coalition partner.

I owe much of my awareness of politics to Glenda Aikin from church who was associated with the ACT party, a minor party, for many years. With her help I was able to arrange for a political meeting in our house with ACT candidate Chris Simmons. He kindly gave our friends and us a civics lesson and went on to explain to us what the ACT party stood for. On Sunday, after church, I noticed that there were others who felt that voting for minor parties was a risk, should there be a close race between Labour and National. I am learning every day.

God’s people must vote carefully. It is our duty to do so. Sadly, I have noticed that some Christians are not very concerned about these matters. Their excuse is that we do not have a viable alternative. For immigrants, unfamiliarity with the system is a hurdle. Indian immigrants are more politically aware than their Chinese counterparts, because we come from a country that is a strong democracy. But even among Indians, many of us have not taken the effort to understand the political system of New Zealand.

My friend Laurie (Beauty for Ashes) , whose links are the best, has linked to an interesting article written by Sherry Early. Sherry writes with the US elections in mind, but what she says applies to Christian voters everywhere. Here is an extract:

So, why am I saying that voting is a trust and a duty anyway? We live in an imperfect world. There are no perfect or perfectly righteous or completely wise candidates for any office, ever, as much as we may wish there were. So we choose the better of two (or more) imperfect candidates. We choose knowing that we may be mistaken, knowing that our candidate, if elected, will do things that we disagree with and will imperfectly implement even the policies with which we agree, if he can implement them at all. We vote on the basis of both issues and the character of the candidates themselves, knowing that our knowledge of both issues and character is also imperfect and incomplete. But to remain silent and nonvoting is also a choice. It’s a choice which says that I refuse to act in this world until I can be sure that my actions will not be misinterpreted, my plans will not go awry, and everyone else in the world will act in perfect integrity just as I do always. We don’t live in that world and won’t for some time to come.

[I encourage all my Christian readers to read Sherry's entire article, To Vote or Not to Vote]

_____________________________________

If you are on the electoral roll in New Zealand, and do not know (like I did not know a couple of weeks ago) the meanings of terms like MMP, Party vote, Electoral vote, and Coalition government, do read on. These are my brief notes about the New Zealand political system. If I have missed out some thing or have misunderstood something, I will be very grateful if you could leave a comment.