Pro-smacking lobbyists funded by overseas Christian group

Email
Print

Pro-smacking lobbyists funded by overseas Christian group

3News NZ

The wording of the question means some 'no' voters might actually want the law to remain as it is

The wording of the question means some 'no' voters might actually want the law to remain as it is

By Rachel Morton

The Government won't change the so-called anti-smacking law, but it wants the police and Child, Youth and Family to report every smacking complaint to the Government so it can monitor how the law is working.

That comes as the Anglican Church took the debate to the pulpit today.

Anglican Dean Ross Bay is uncomfortable with the popular opinion that all Christians are pro-smacking.

"There have been people who have been wanting to take a very Christian stance on it, and they say, 'Well, Christians believe that it's our God-given right to smack our children,' and I'm wanting to challenge that."

The Anglican Church is concerned that pro-smacking lobbyists have made some generalisations about what all Christian denominations believe.

"My concern is that through the idea of saying Christians believe that 'spare the rod and you spoil the child' is almost an implication that the kind of God we believe in is looking for opportunities to punish," says Dean Bay, "and that therefore punishment is a good thing."

Meanwhile it has been reported that referendum initiators Focus On the Family get funding from a conservative American Christian organisation of the same name.

But that is being brushed off by another of the pro-smacking lobbyists as "irrelevant".

"Many organisations in New Zealand get funding from all sorts of places," says Larry Baldock of the Kiwi Party. "Focus On the Family here is a branch of the worldwide organisation, so it's possible they get funding from them - but that's had nothing to do with this referendum."

The issue will be back with the Government tomorrow. It won't change the law, but Prime Minister John Key told 3 News he wants Child, Youth and Family and the police to report every smacking complaint to the Government so he can monitor if the law is working.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

24/11/2009 4:58:48 p.m.

geofrey rainey wrote:

Lauren Prebble, they probably feed the poor as well as fight for their own freedoms. And they're "right-wing" why exactly, because they believe they should be able to smack their children?

21/11/2009 9:43:01 p.m.

Lauren Prebble wrote:

What a waste of money. Just imagine if all these right-wing christian groups spent all their money on feeding the poor instead of wasting in down the drain like this.

30/08/2009 10:31:42 p.m.

Paul wrote:

No I'm not confused, I understand now that we are governed by greedy bleeding heart liberal lairs who individually will have some explaining to do come election time. I have no motives for saying this other than I believe in democracy. I'm a atheist and my values of reason and fairness have been destroyed.

24/08/2009 2:48:45 p.m.

Zena wrote:

Well New Zealanders must be feeling pretty confused, having cast a vote and with enormous money spent on this referendum, for the response to be.....NO change. For what purpose was the whole process then? Good to know we have such a budget excess to play around with. Surely parents SHOULD have the right to decide what is appropriate discipline when it comes to their own children, in much the same way as they choose the food they eat, which school they'll attend and basically take care of them until they reach adulthood. Why don't we throw dollars at the real problems/issues going on in NZ and stop using the smacking issue as a smokescreen.

24/08/2009 1:37:08 p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

And really, does the Christian Right think we're utterly fools? Focus on the Family is a well-heeled, arrogant and aggressive US based militant fundamentalist multinational corporation, which interfered in our domestic politics once before, sending one Dr Bill Maier down here to agitate against our Civil Union Bill.

No wonder the Christian Right pro-belters were so well-heeled...at least anti-abuse/child welfare groups are funded by ***New Zealanders***...

24/08/2009 10:22:52 a.m.

Diana (2) wrote:

Get over it. No one has or would ever be prosecuted for "lightly" smacking their child; the police have discretion, which means that those 13 cases who have already been prosecuted under the post- 2007 section 59 have gone way beyond the boundaries of physical harm advocated by the pro-smackers. Our crimes Act, past and present, has NEVER permitted the physical punishment of children; the repeal of section 59, from its introduction in the House in 2005, to its inclusion in the crimes Act in 2007, simply removed a loophole in the legal defence of using physical force to justify physical abuse.

24/08/2009 10:08:53 a.m.

Diana wrote:

To argue that section 59 is designed to stop child abuse/murder in the here and now is dellusional. Those who do commit these crimes are adults parented under the pre- repeal 59 environment. The actual intent of the post 2007 section 59 is among one of many to sow the seeds toward alternatives to violence in relationhips and living. Seeds take time to germinate, emerge and grow strong. A generation, perhaps two. Who would want to stomp all over and destroy the potential to mature toward a more constructive and caring society?


24/08/2009 6:15:31 a.m.

And... wrote:

People still commit murder, despite it being illegal. Are you suggesting we repeal the law against murder too?

23/08/2009 7:37:15 p.m.

R wrote:

And?????.......so this is some attempt to discredit the result of the referendum? Does this mean that 87.6% of New Zealander's are influenced by christians or common sense? I note that child abuse/deaths has not declined since the introduction of the anti smacking bill. Surely the law already had sufficient teeth to deal with abusive parents/caregivers before the introduction of section 59? Please don't attempt to diminish the overwhelming public opinion on this ill conceived law.