|
Skip to make comment
|
Skip to read comments | 
Send to a friend
NZCPR
Guest Forum
Opinion piece by
Ruby
Harrold-Claesson
24 March 07
The
Smacking Ban: A dangerous law
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
In
the Dominion Post article (14/3) "Police
prepare rules to act on smacks" the New Zealand
public is informed that police
chiefs are preparing to send out guidelines for dealing with
complaints about smacking as the bill outlawing the use of
physical punishment as
the final vote draws nearer.
The
Gisborne Herald article (17/3) "New
bill ‘unlikely’ to drastically lift police workload"
is based on a quotation from
Police
Minister Annette King. The Police Minister's views are quite irrelevant because
the police, prosecutors and the criminal justice system are
obliged to enforce the letter of the law. Thinking New
Zealanders have known all along that the proposed law would
lead to policing and criminalising responsible
parents.
Being a lawyer in
Sweden
under the regime of the anti-smacking law, I have known that
all along, and I am still trying to warn
New Zealand
before it is too late: The anti smacking bill will turn
parents into criminals. If the Bill becomes law it will mean the
abolition of parental authority. That is exactly what the Editor of the Swedish
newspaper The Day, (Dagen) wrote in his editorial "An
unnecessary law" on November 11, 1978. (click
to view >>>)
See
read John McNeil's article "The Anti smacking bill
will turn parents into criminals" published in
Challenge Weekly (view
>>>).
In
Sweden
the supporters of the Bill - the law was passed by 344 of 350 votes "to protect children from
abuse" - claimed that no parent would be prosecuted under the
anti-smacking law because it was promulgated in the Parents
and guardianship Code. However, When I state in lectures,
debates or public talks, etc., that the anti-smacking law is
invoked to support the criminal charges against the parents
and that the law has made parents afraid of their children, that
the children intimidate their parents by threatening to report
them to the police and the social services, etc., my opponents say that I am scaremongering or that I
don't know what I am talking about. However, my statement is confirmed in the
article "European Report: Mummy and Daddy spare
rod -- or go to court", published in 2000. Well,
there
you have it. (See
>>>)
In a government-funded
speech in February 2006, Joan Durrant, claimed that
Sweden
's smacking ban has reduced child abuse to "virtually
zero". (See
>>>) . The ideological advocates, led by Sue
Bradford, claim that a smacking ban will reduce child abuse in
New Zealand
. However, Dr. Chris Beckett's
paper
(2005), that bears
the title: 'The
Swedish Myth: The Corporal Punishment Ban and Child Death
Statistics',
shows that it did not reduce child abuse nor child homicides.
It is just a myth. (See
>>>).
Dr. Bob Larzelere has shown that in Sweden, trends
indicate sharply increasing rates of physical child abuse, at
least in criminal records of assaults by relatives against
children under the age of seven (7). This frequency increased
from 99 in 1981 to 583 in 1994, a 489% increase. On February
28, 2007, Family First published a press release informing of
a "14%
Increase in Child Abuse despite Swedish Smacking Ban".
These are the latest figures from
Sweden
revealing that more children were abused in
Sweden
in 2006 compared with the 2005 figures, according to The
Swedish Daily. (See
>>>).
Since
1978 - the year before the anti-smacking Bill gained force of
law - until today, thousands of parents have been reported,
accused, arrested by the police, detained, tried in courts of
law and sentenced to fines or prison as a result of the said
law. Christian
Diesen, a professor in
Sweden
was quoted in an article in the NZ Herald saying: "Approximately
7000 cases [of beating children] are reported each year, but
only 10 per cent lead to prosecution..." It would seem
that Diesen would like to see more parents prosecuted. Anyway,
ten per cent gives the grand total of 700 cases per annum
multiplied by 27 years, makes 18 900 prosecutions for child
abuse from 1979 until 2006. The number of prosecutions may
seem small, but the 7 000 reports multiplied by 27 years
brings the number of families that have been affected to 189
000. In unsubstantiated cases, suspected physical abuse of
children is transformed into factual administrative and mental
abuse of the children and their parents.
Swedish
case law bears ample evidence of the devastating effects the
anti-smacking law has had on children and their parents and
the Swedish society as a whole. The case with the family of
seven children in the south of
Sweden
shows that even if the parent has been acquitted in the
criminal case, the children are taken into care and placed in
foster care. It therefore seems quite obvious that the Select
Committee - of which Sue Bradford was a member and thus could
exert undue influence - did not examine the Swedish case law
that I presented at the oral hearing, otherwise Parliament
would have voted against the Bill at the second reading.
For
those who aren't yet acquainted with Swedish case law on
smacking, here are two interesting cases: 1 - On June 17, 2000
a father was finally acquitted in the Court of Appeal for
Western Sweden
for physically forcing his 11-yr old son to take a shower
before returning home to his mother in the Autumn of 1997. The
District court found that the father had assaulted his son
when he led him bodily to the shower.
2
- On May 5, 2005, the Court of Appeal for
Western Sweden
found a step-father guilty of abuse for slapping his 15-yr old
step-daughter who had spat in his face. The step-father had
been acquitted in Varberg District court in October 2004.
Prosecuting
parents for physically forcing or punishing their children
when words and admonitions prove to be insufficient is in no
way in the best interest of children - neither in
Sweden
nor in
New Zealand
. It is, and must remain, the parents' duty and right to
educate and socialise their children within the context of
their family.
Who
has the right to decide what is right? The politicians or the
parents who know and love their children and want what is best
for them?
Sweden
's politicians decided what was right and best for the
children of
Sweden
, and the parents were forced to abdicate or be dragged
through the criminal and administrative court systems. Today
both parents and children suffer at the hands of the social
bureaucracy with the right to separate children from their
"abusive" parents and put them in foster homes.
However, separating children from their parents constitutes
the greatest abuse - both physical and emotional - that can be
inflicted on children and their families.
The
right to respect for private and family life is a basic Human
Right. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
stipulates:
"No
one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or
attacks."
Likewise, Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child guarantees:
"1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2.
The child has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks."
Sue
Bradford's Bill to criminalise smacking is pure and simple
state intervention and interference in the family structure,
typical for regimes that aim to break down the family,
undermine parental authority and make children the property of
the state - to be used and abused at will by the bureaucrats
in what they claim to be "the child's best
interest".
I
have been criticised for saying that Swedish children are
badly behaved. Well, I am not the only one who finds that
Swedish children are badly behaved. See for eg Roger Lord's
article "The children are embarrassing
Sweden
"
(see
>>>), and Linda Skugge's article "We are
bringing up a generation of monsters" (see
>>>). Also, contact the Swedish Foreign Office in
Stockholm
and ask them to supply you with the correspondence between the
former Head of the Legal Department, Hans Corell, and the
Swedish consuls in continental Europe concerning "Swedish
youths' behaviour during the sport holidays in the
Alps
". 1991-01-22 is the date on one of Hans Corell's
letters.
To
normal thinking people, a well-behaved child is a joy to its
parents, friends and the community at large; a badly behaved
child is an abomination. The Daily Mail, March 13, 2007, has
published the article, "The terror aged ten",
about the 10-yr old boy who drinks, smokes pot, steals and
terrorises his neighbourhood. (See
>>>)
Some
of those who have commented on the article think that the
boy's parents should be made answerable for his behaviour.
Sue
Bradford has extensive, personal experience of being arrested
by the police, detained, tried in courts of law and sentenced
to prison. It seems that she wants decent, loving, caring
parents to share her experiences.
I
am convinced that
New Zealand
has enough intelligent, level-headed politicians so they will
not want their fellow citizens to have to make the same
mistakes that
Sweden
has made.
Bradford
's Bill is not being progressive; it is being destructive and
repressive. The French reporter, Jean-Francis Held, wrote the
article "Smacking: Those Swedes must be
crazy!" (see
>>>)
I hope we will not have to read the article: "Smacking: Those Kiwis
must be crazy!"
By
the way, if the New Zealand MP's want to follow
Sweden
's example, then I can inform you that we had a change of
government in October 2006.
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published here.
Skip to top |
Send to a friend |
Skip to read comments
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Skip to read comments
Send to
a friend:
|
