Let’s see where Marika Hill is taking this attempt at breathing life into another outrage corpse
Supporters of the controversial “anti-smacking” law are claiming victory after a dramatic fall in the number of parents being investigated for hitting their children.
But opponents of the 2007 law change have accused the Government of fudging the numbers and the issue looks set to become an election lightning rod, with the Conservative Party, a potential Government coalition partner, committed to overturning the legislation.
The amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act in 2007 removed the defence of “reasonable force” for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.
It divided the country, with its sponsor, former Green MP Sue Bradford, receiving death threats while Family First director Bob McCroskie, an opponent of the change, found plastic knives stabbed into his lawn.
Opponents of the law change claimed “good parents” would be prosecuted for disciplining children and it would do nothing to stop serious harm to children.
Unnamed “supporters” of anti smacking legislation. Â Come on now Marika. Â Did you interview your keyboard or are you doing a favour for a friend here? Â
Police say they have prosecuted just eight parents for smacking children in the five years since the law came in. Seven of those parents had smacked their child in the head or face.
The eighth parent was discharged without conviction for striking the child on the hand. Police said they were also being called to fewer smacking incidents though they stopped counting smacking prosecutions after the Government’s five-year review process came to an end.
Bradford said the dramatic drop in notifications proved parents were turning their back on smacking. “This is what those of us involved in the heart of the struggle expected. That dreadful witch hunt and crazy campaign that went on at the time, none of it’s come true.
“Anecdotally, I have so many adults who said what a lesson [the law] was. They say: âI used to think I had to hit my kids because my parents did’.”
Bradford fears a “nightmare” scenario where Craig holds bargaining power: “Heaven forbid, if Colin Craig becomes influential in the next Government.
“I think it leaves [Prime Minister] JohnÂ Key in some difficulty. It would be dreadful to see him [Craig] and his party with the power to strongly influence a National-led Government.”
Aha. Â As I suspected, complete has-been and professional protester Sue Bradford’s been in your ear with “anecdotal evidence”.
I love how Marika is allowing Bradford a platform to try and reignite an election issue that isn’t anything more than grandstanding and something else much more disturbing.
The something else being the disgusting attempt at trying to rewrite history.
Observers may recall Bradford wanted anti-smacking introduced to stop the disgusting and sickening number of children that are killed by their family and hangers-on in New Zealand each year.
But now the legislation is a victory that “only” 8 smacking cases got to court?
Marika Hill only has to do a search on her own newspaper database to see how well anti-smacking legislation is protecting New Zealand’s children
Look into those eyes Sue Bradford. Â Are you really proud of how your anti-smackingÂ legislationÂ is protecting these childrenÂ from their extended families?
Trying to reignite a political career over the bodies of dead children is disgusting enough.
Yet the same media outlet that ‘choose not to name’ the mother of the 9 year old drunk boy are a willing vehicle for celebrating the questionable success of legislation that is now being measured on conviction rates of parents that smack kids, while ignoring all the murdered babies filling up our cemeteries.