Real Objectives Revealed
Press Release for Immediate Distribution
Real Objectives Revealed
At last MP Sue Bradford has been forced to
admit her real objectives > of her bill to repeal of Section
59 of the Crimes Act.
The Justice and > Electoral Select Committee's report shows it was not to reduce > violence but to hamstring parents. > > The committee has re-written Section 59 so that it lists the occasions > when reasonable force can be used by parents with their children.
This > categorising of legitimate uses of force was something Bradford > consistently railed against as totally unacceptable. But she has > helped delineate and describe four situations. Three of those have to > do with preventing behaviour that might lead to harm, crime or is > offensive or disruptive. The fourth simply allows parents to use > reasonable force for "performing the normal daily tasks that are > incidental to good care and parenting."
> > But the re-write specifically and pointedly prohibits reasonable force > to be used if the motivation is to correct. > > Parents are to be legally prohibited from correcting their own > children! How revealing of Bradford's purposes!
The original Section > 59 only allows the use of reasonable force for one reason: correction. > Bradford's new version of Section 59 only specifically prohibits the > use of force for one reason: correction. > > Correcting children with force of any kind, however light, is > specifically prohibited.
Yet part of parenting is teaching right and > proper behaviour and speech, teacing manners and etiquette, teaching > grooming and modesty, teaching right from wrong, good from bad, wise > from unwise. Reasonable force can be used to stop some but not all bad > behaviour the parents may want to stop. But nothing in this law > appears to allow parents to use force to get the child to behave in a > way the parent may require or that culture, tradition or societal > norms expects. This new Section 59 allows the use of reasonable force > to stop some types of bad behaviour, but does not allow the use of > force to enforce the performance or practise of any kind of good > behaviour. >
The standard of public behaviour will obviously sink to the lowest > level generally acceptable, since parents will not be legally allowed > to force children to maintain higher standards.
Disobedience and > disrespect will blossom. Those who feed on such dysfunction can see a > bonanza on the horizon: it was as if this legislation had the future > welfare of counsellors, psychologists, lawyers and the exploding > numbers of child and family advocacy and interventionist groups in > mind. >
This Bill has become totally unworkable. It shows that the purpose has > nothing at all to do with violence or excessive force against > children, which things are already illegal.
The purpose of this bill > all along has been to repeal parental authority over their own > children, to minimise and compromise a parent's ability to correct, > train or discipline his or her child to act, dress or speak to any > standard imposed by the parent. > Correction of children is to be illegal. This is absurd. It is insane. >