Submmission Needed - Paternity Implications

Source: menz @ menz.org.nz/2007/submmission-needed-paternity-implications/


Submmission Needed - Paternity Implications

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is open for submissions.

This is an important bill for Fathers as there are serious implications for paternity registration buried in the bill.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are of particular interest as is 84A

To Sum Up

The first is in relation to the part of the bill which places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a Registrar of the birth of a child. If

The only exceptions are when there is only one parent at law - this happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, or where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called “undue distress” to one of the parents.
This changes the position from the current law, where the obligation to notify a Registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth.

If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father - whether they choose to or not.

If the father does not agree to having his name on the Birth Certificate the registrar can use extensive investigation powers to place a fathers name on the birth certificate.
Section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to “having had the relevant provision of this Act drawn to the person’s attention, fails or refuses to give any information required by this Act to be given”.

Please have a look at the bill and please make a submission to the select committee.
Remember a child has a right to know both of his parents and while it is easy to identify the mother the only conclusive evidence that a man is a child’s father is a DNA test. Please stress the need for FREE DNA testing if requested by a Father as a requirement for birth registration.
The certificate of birth is the primary document used for establishing proof of paternity for child support (tax) recovery and if it is wrong it is currently and will under this bill will be very difficult and expensive for a father to gain redress against the injustice.

Remember the solution is simple FREE DNA tests,without the mother acting as a gatekeeper, if requested as this will protect the child and the father and provide honesty and truth in parenthood.

Finally lets not forget the kids, they have the right to be sure that dad is dad and not an unrelated stranger.

Regards

Scrap

Watch out for psychological tests.

Watch out for psychological tests.Sunday, 25.03.2007, 12:47pm (GMT12)

Watch out for psychological tests

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 24th, 2007

Source: New Zealand Families vs CYFS Support Forum

Hans Laven writes:

Watch out for psychological tests

If CYFS refer you for psychological assessment or treatment, be careful about this process and especially about filling out assessment questionnaires or participating in tests. While I am not at liberty to discuss any cases, it may be enough to say that it is possible for a parent to be referred for counselling to a psychologist who will then convince the parent to participate in a personality test. The parent might be led to believe this is part of the assessment process for the counselling, but in referring the parent CYFS can make it clear that they would like some professional evidence to justify their decision in uplifting the children. The "counselling" becomes mainly a facade for obtaining some professional dirt on the parent.

The psychologist is paid by CYFS and will be keen to accommodate what CYFS wants in the hope of getting further contracts. Even though the personality test might not give results suggesting that the parent is dangerous, the psychologist can pick out and report bad-sounding aspects of the test results and can add to this critical comments about the parent's presentation in the sessions. The parent, all the time believing that they are just undertaking counselling to address CYFS concerns, is then surprised to see the psychologist has prepared a damning report that is used to prevent any return of the children. Believe me, it happens.

Lessons from the story:
- if referred for counselling, get in writing from the counsellor an agreement about the purpose of the work and the nature of any reporting back, and have this looked over by your lawyer before proceeding
- do not agree to participate in personality assessments which, more than many other assessment tools, are open to massive interpretation and misuse
- if CYFS recommends counselling, do not attend counselling or treatment paid for by CYFS because of the risk that CYFS will thereby exploit the process. Instead, pay for it and the report privately if possible, or ask if it can be provided through the free Family Court counselling system which is confidential and allows only minimal forms of reporting back.

==============================================

Reply from Tracy

Theyre exploiting us through counselling right now and its terrifying me, know exactly what you mean.I understood my kids were to be counselled for the trauma of my sons accident, cyfs paid for my daughters counselling because she didnt have acc entitlement.The questions are SO leading shes refused to go, they want the family to go so they can spark an argument then write a bad report on us, so far 5 sessions, not one mention of accident just `who lives at home' `your mother has no rules does she?" `why are you hitting people?' "dont lie, now who's hitting you' It wouldnt be so bad, but i'm an advocate of non violent parenting and dont hit them AT ALL.I'm sitting back in horror watching myself being `fitted up' for stuff i'm not even doing!

======================================

Reply from : Michelle Lee Stewart

CYFS have done exactly that to me and taken into custody my 2 youngest children, on the grounds that I have mental health issues, I'm a drug addict and dealer, I'm a prostitute, I have abused and neglected my 3 children, I'm totally incapble of caring for my children, and the worst thing that these lying social workers have said that I strangled my son while breastfeeding him.

He is now 5 years old, and the lies and slander just go on and on. I am well aware that I am not facing false allegations on my own. How can these corrupt social workers and all who conspire with them be allowed to get away with such cruel abuse of families. Their care & protection orders are a cruel and utter insult on my family, I notice that the department are not paying the school bill. How do you stand up and fight against this corrupt system.

CYFS are a real life modern-day Gestapo. They have destroyed my life and it will never be the same. I'm not crazy and I'm not stupid the way that the system has made me out to be. It would be nice if anyone wanted to contact me here in the Waikato, thanks, god bless you all, Michelle, 10 Jamieson Crescent, Te Rapa, Hamilton, phone 07-849-0331 or e-mail me on: michelle.stewart@..., all the best to everyone out there who sufferes under these lying NAZI social workers, for they are the real abusers, may they be brought to justice for all of their lies and slander that they push through the family court.

Wellington peaceful protest march details

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Wellington peaceful protest march details

MARCH ON PARLIAMENT

AgainstAnti Smacking Bill

DO YOU VALUE THE RIGHT TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE?

Then do something about it BEFORE it’s too late!

Join us in a PEACEFUL protest

Wednesday 28th March 2007

Beginning at Civic Square at 12pm then
advancing to Parliament

*This march will be peaceful, and children will be present. If anyone turns violent, we will be helping the police cart you off to jail.

For more information, see

http://smackingback.blogspot.com/ or e-mailantiantismacking@gmail.comMitch LeesRepresentativePhone: 027 243 1676

19 March 2007 - Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law - March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

Tuesday, 20 March 2007

19 March 2007 - Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law - March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00226.htm

March on Parliment To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

Monday, 19 March 2007, 12:39 pm

Press Release: Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Anti Smacking Bill

Public March on Parliament To Protest Anti-Smacking Bill

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Abraham Lincoln once used these golden words to describe the purpose of politicians in a free society. Yet with polls now showing over 80% of New Zealanders in opposition to Sue Bradford's proposed anti-smacking bill, it is clear that our current government no longer understands why they have been elected. In accordance with another cornerstone of a free society, freedom of speech and freedom to dissent, Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law (CANSAL) will be staging a peaceful march on Parliament to remind our politicians just whom they are elected to serve.

Sue Bradford's bill, proposing to remove the right of parents to use a smack as a form of correction for children, will turn loving parents into criminals. The bill strikes at the very foundations of the family structure. Will parents who choose to smack be 'ratted out,' Soviet-style, by teachers or neighbours?

The proposed law would compel the police to get involved in cases where they have no place - wasting valuable time and resources – and give them no discretion, as they themselves have said, as to whether they use common sense in deciding whether to arrest. Indeed, being that one of the jobs of MPs when passing laws is to make them unambiguous, it is outrageous that the police are now going to be put in an even more uncertain position. This will subject the police to more and more public anger – hardly what they need.

I, like many other New Zealanders, was smacked as a child when I deserved it. To think that my parents could have been taken away from me for their actions in correcting me is incomprehensible. What we have now is government of the people, by the Politically Correct, for the Politically Correct.

The bureaucrats have stolen our cash, they have interfered with our property, and now they are trying to invade our homes. It's time to push back. The present law allowing "reasonable force" should be left intact.

The protest march will start at Civic Square at noon on Wednesday 28 March.

ENDS

Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Lawhttp://smackingback.blogspot.com/

Where the hell are the parents opposing the passing of repeal of Section 59?

Who will stand up for New Zealand families?

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ & Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Where the hell are the parents opposing the passing of repeal of Section 59?

Wednesday, 14.03.2007, 09:58am (GMT12)

Not Supported writes:

I have noted with an air of gloom the recent passing - or as good as - of Sue Bradford’s bill. What I would like to know is what the hell can we do about it if the government will not listen to the voices of the majority in this country who oppose the repeal of section 59?

Would the 80% of us who oppose this anti-democratic forceful imposition of law be able - or willing - to band together as a single unit to take the GOVERNMENT to court in the largest ever class action and is this even possible? I suggest that as this is meant to be a democracy and since the majority on NZ’ers are against the repeal, then in go ahead with this legislation the government is acting undemocratically and therefore illegally. I for one would proudly participate in a class action against this government. Who else would?

CYFSWATCH replies:

We believe that it is not “class action” that is needed, but rather “direct action”. This website is an example of “direct action” - putting everything on the line for the sake of defending a set of principles and beliefs - it’s what our forefathers did when they went to war. Now, the very liberty and freedom they fought and died for in their generation is being handed to the enemy on a silver platter via apathy and no-stomach-for-a-fight by this generation. Pathetic really that New Zealand as a people are, on the whole, too afraid to take direct action - it seems that we have become a nation of fearful wimps. The enemy is winning - without a shot being fired. To “take out” ones own people is called treason - the Government has been “taking out” its own people for years, and most of us just let it happen. Lawyers and lawsuits don’t start revolutions - direct action by a people who cry “enough” do.

CYFSWATCH NZ In the news again. Another mirror stie

TV 3: "Notorious" CYFSWATCH website re-launched.Tuesday, 13.03.2007, 03:18pm (GMT12)


Notorious CYFS watch website re-launched

Tue-13-Mar-2007 11:15am Tue-13-Mar-2007 11:15am

Another mirror site of the controversial "cyfswatch" website, aiming to "name and shame" Child, Youth and Family Social workers, has been set up.

Google shut down the original blog following threats to Green MP Sue Bradford over her bill.

A mirror site popped up soon after, and now there is another carrying summaries of 11 more CYF cases in its "Hall of Shame".

Is the New Zealand Government tyrannical?

Is the New Zealand Government tyrannical?

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on March 4th, 2007

As posted on Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Sunday, March 4, 2007 pm31 6:09 PM

Posted by Watchingcyfs:

Firstly a word of encouragement to CYFSWATCH NZ

Keep up the good work.

With the closing down of the two CYFSWATCH NZ’s blogs, hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of people were denied an opportunity to have their stories told.

The New Zealand government’s attempt to silence them is completely a disregard of their right to Free Speech.

One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire.
It is not too late. One individual can re-ignite a revolution.

May that spark which re ignites that revolution be CYFSWATCH NZ

====================================================================

Secondly two interesting pieces, # 1 a news piece and #2 a commentary source unknownI was very interested to read the following article that I found lately while just surfing around on the net.

The following article was published in The Washington Times on 29/09/2000

=============================================
# 1

Paul Craig Roberts identifies the relationship between our universities ‘politically correct’??? And those of previous ideologies. He is right on target. His article appeared in The Washington Times (September 29, 2000).

“Tyranny is creeping up on us. If you don’t believe it, consider the most prominent hallmarks of the Nazi and communist regimes, which sought to supplant democracy in the 20th century.

”In National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union, there were no First Amendment rights. No one could voice an opinion contrary to the politically correct views enforced by the Gestapo and the KGB. Media and education were used to instill politically correct thinking and bring denunciation upon anyone who departed from politically correct thinking.

“This is precisely the situation that exists today in the vast majority of American colleges and universities. Verbal and facial expressions that are contrary to political correctness result in sensitivity training (a form of brainwashing) or expulsion for the offender, who may have done nothing more than laugh. If the source of mirth is an ethnic joke, a blonde joke or a hilarious claim by a multiculturalist, the hapless offender discovers that his constitutional protections do not exist.

”In Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there were victim groups that were championed and oppressor groups that were suppressed. In Germany, the ‘victims’ were Aryans, who were said to be under the financial hegemony of Jews. In the Soviet Union, the hegemonic group was the bourgeoisie, who allegedly held sway over an oppressed proletariat. In both countries, victims were permitted to exercise violent language and actions against oppressors.

“In the United States today, white heterosexual able-bodied males constitute the hegemonic group. Everyone else is a member of a victim group.

”In Germany and the Soviet Union, the abstract and imaginary group roles of oppressor and victim were given a frightful reality by ideologues. Race and class categories became the basis for discrimination and new legal systems that favored victims’ groups with preferences.
“On American campuses, multi-cultural ideology has revived the concepts of race and class oppression, and added new ones based on gender and sexual orientation. Men oppress women, and heterosexuals oppress homosexuals.

”According to multiculturalists, our culture and values reflect nothing but the arbitrary domination of society by white heterosexual males. University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Kors says that, thanks to multiculturalism, ‘half a century after the defeat of Nazism, we distinguish by blood and we equate blood with culture.’ We now think like Nazis and explain our society and culture in terms of race (and gender) hegemony.

“Tyrannical states attack the family. Both the Nazis and communists are infamous for state intrusions in family affairs. In the United States, similar bureaucratic and political intrusions come from family courts. Most Americans are unaware of the existence of these relatively new ‘courts.’ Howard University Professor Stephen Baskerville is the leading authority on these courts. He says family courts are ‘the most dangerous institutions posing a threat to constitutional rights in our society. The only parallels are the ideological-bureaucratic dictatorships of the last century.’

”Family courts claim immunity from the Constitution and from scrutiny by federal courts. Mr. Baskerville describes them as follows: ‘their proceedings are secret and unrecorded. Their orders are enforced by bureaucratic police who do not wear uniforms and whose sole responsibility is to conduct surveillance over families and private lives. As such, these police are akin to secret police. By the very nature of their jurisdiction, these courts and police are the most intrusive and invasive arm of government, and yet they are accountable to virtually no one. Such an institution is intolerable in a free society.’

“Recently a family court judge ordered the parents of a 7-year-old boy in Berne, N.Y., to put their child on Ritalin, a behavior-control drug. The alternative was to be found guilty of ‘educational neglect,’ an offense that would open the possibility of their child being seized by Child Protective Services – a Hillary Clinton ‘village’ institution straight from the pages of the Gestapo. The child suffered serious side effects from the drug, but parents no longer have the right to decide what is best for their children. ”

Tyrannical states assault the individual in the inner recesses of his consciousness. He is not permitted to think certain thoughts or to express a prohibited thought privately to anyone. “Recently, Janice Barton encountered a Spanish-speaking couple while leaving a restaurant in Manistee, Mich. She turned to her mother and said, ‘I wish these [ethnic slur] would learn to speak English.’ An off- duty deputy sheriff over-heard the private remark, followed the woman to her car and noted her tag number. Janice Barton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for her thought crime.

”This couldn’t happen in a free country.“

Ends.

=========================================================================

Watching CYFSWATC NZ comments;

It has raised some very valid points, which needs to be discussed. It made me think of a few questions that I feel needs to be addressed.

Can & does the same sort of thing happen in New Zealand? If it does how wide spread is it?

How many lives and families are being destroyed by such a push by the New Zealand’s Government to bring about social change & equality by ” FORCE “ & ” COERCION “?

What part do the many varied social groups ( eg Women’s refuge etc )have in this process of change to our society?

What part does the Family Court, Justice system, CYFS and the Mental Health services have to play in especially the matter of Family & Domestic violence, Child Abuse and in general the destruction of the family unit?

Just the thought of this sort of abuse of power in New Zealand by different originations such as CYFS, Family Court, WINZ, IRD, ACC, Police, and the people who are in position of power (eg MP’s, Judges, Police, Social workers etc) is quite disgusting to say the least and should not be tolerated any longer.

You cannot bring about such changes by the misuse of power to control how people think & react with the use of FORCE & COERCION. In reality a big power struggle to which the strongest wins there is always a loser.

Where is the equality that it trys so hard to obtain when they use power and control to bring it about?

I suggest to you that Equality in this sense doesn’t in reality exist.

It all just seems to be people in these positions of power wanting to make up in their own twisted perception what they perceive is the best for everyone and then by whatever means available to then force people by the use of FORCE & COERCION to get what they want.

Is New Zealand going down this path to destruction?

========================================================================

# 2

In the Discovery of freedom

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. To be cured against one\’s own will of a state we do not regard as a disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason, or those who never will, and to be classed with infants, imbeciles and domestic animals.— C.S. Lewis

In The Discovery of Freedom, novelist and historian Rose Wilder Lane described the man who fired the first shot against the British in the American Revolution:

Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King’s troops. He defied a world-empire.…

No one knows who began the American Revolution. Only his neighbours ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom.

Every individual, as a human being, is the source of productive, creative energy. Each individual is alone a moral agent, and that force from another can never induce creation. In a real sense, fundamentally, every human being is free. In practice, there is only one freedom in society: that of living one’s life as one chooses, and allowing others to do the same.

Moral responsibility cannot be applied to anything outside the individual’s choice - one cannot be judged for that which is outside one’s control. Nor can one judge others by that which is outside their control. Yet the individual is told that he must - automatically - love, value and respect people with whom he may hold nothing in common except the blood running through his veins. An individual’s values must be acquired by his own mind and his own choice.

In the physical sciences, many actions can be accurately predicted — in the case of astronomy, for example, the position of planets hundreds of years in the future can be calculated. But in the case of human choices and history, nothing is fated. Human beings operate with a unique faculty: volition. We choose our own fates. Freedom is not inevitable. But then, neither is tyranny. Liberty in New Zealand — and liberty in societies throughout the world — was won because it was recognised and valued. In order to regain and keep our birthright of freedom, we must never forget its nature or its value.

Freedom is a social requirement of man’s nature. Freedom is freedom from force. Force is justified only when used in retaliation against those who initiate it. But — “If I am wielding retaliatory force, my use of that instrument must be in strict accordance with publicly promulgated laws, and publicly observable judicial proceedings, so that people are not left wondering how, where and against whom I will use force tomorrow” (David Kelley). A is A — and Anarchism is the Arbitrary writ large.

Make no mistake, there is no idea bigger, or more important for the survival of this planet, than the liberty of the human individual; the idea that you own your own life & are accountable to no one but yourself. When you understand that, you will understand, as Kipling said: ’that mine is the Earth & everything that’s in it, & – which is more – you’ll be a Man my son!“

For too long, freedom has been absent from societyThe problem is that we live in a society, and a world, that is geared up to restrict freedom. As a result, true freedom is a concept that is scary to too many people - and this is where perception halts any such fight.

It is individual freedom that is the one thing, due to our inherent nature as thinking, choosing beings, that any proper society should recognise as man’s absolute right. To survive, freedom is what man requires above all else; it is his by right, and therefore what the government should do all in its power to protect. The right to my - and your - freedom does not come at anybody’s expense.

Today, in New Zealand, it is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word. It came about by a law passed in 1995 and put into force on 1st July 1996 — The Domestic Violence Act which replaced the old Molestation Act. It is a brilliant illustration of how ”philosophies“ such as modern feminism and its femi-nazi adherents can be used to subvert freedom.

How do such things happen? They happen because those who seek to control us are very good at playing on the unearned guilt which the innocent are all too willing to bear, and at using good motives as a cover for evil ones. No-one doubts that unfortunately there do exist violent, destructive men from whom their victims need legitimate protection, and urgency laws for such cases may well be the best way of handling these cases.

There are violent men, there are abusive husbands and fathers. But there are, also, violent women, there are abusive wives and mothers. Justice, as a system, is meant to enter into matters with an open mind. Yes, it is reasonable to ask who, if either, in a custody dispute is violent or abusive or negligent. And it is in the best interest of the child involved to be with the better parent though often who is better is virtually impossible to determine. But it is not in the interest of the child, the parents or our society generally to make this decision and place a child on the basis of faulty, gender-biased policies.

To portray men as violent and women as victims is to stereotype both sexes and harm both. There is already an ideological bias in this direction. False accusations of spousal abuse and child abuse are already a problem in custody cases. Too many therapists are already caught up in theories which cast women in these roles and cast suspicion on men.

In no way do I condon any form of violence and abuse that is perpetrated on any individual , man woman or child.However, there are hundreds of broken relationships occurring every year; it is demonstrable from the statistics that vicious men are in the minority. But the Domestic Violence Act 1995 acts on the assumption that all men are potentially violent — and this is a direct consequence of the culture of academic feminism which, via Universities, has peddled exactly that message for the past two decades.

There are thousands of lives in New Zealand and all over the world that are being destoryed by the Government , the Justice system , the Psychology Industry and the Feminist movment.

We are all inclined, when we think of ”power“ and ”abuse“ within the context of ”psychology,“ to focus on what we consider to be the abuse of power by individuals within the profession or to apply psychological concepts to identify individuals from other walks of life, such as politicians, celebrities, teachers and coaches, as abusing their power. For instance, when we hear of cases in which professors develop relationships with their students or therapists with their clients, we tend to view these as instances of something inherently immoral and coercive. And, when we think of any profession or any organization or institution, we tend to think in terms of an internal patriarchal power dynamic, citing evidence to support theories of male dominance and control.

While these may be issues to address, I want to suggest to you that each of these is like a ”tree“ that serves to obscure the view of the ”forest.“ And that in staying focused on these issues, we are failing to notice, and to address, a much larger problem. As we express outrage about individual cases of alleged abuse, what we lose sight of is a pervasive and rampant abuse of power by the profession of psychology. It is this abuse of power committed in the name of professionalism that devalues, exploits, trivializes and victimizes people throughout society.

When we hear of the abuse of power by individuals, we need to look behind these claims to examine the role of psychology and to consider how it may be misusing its influence. It is the profession itself which is victimizing people, particularly women, as it turns them into powerless, dependent and stupid ”adult children,“ unable to think for themselves, to take responsibility for their actions, to admit their mistakes, acknowledge their shortcomings, or even enjoy their romantic conquests.

Psychology is responsible for the creation of most of the concepts employed in accusations involving the abuse of power, it is psychology that coined the terms and formed the notions, and it is psychology that benefits most from the contamination of society by the uncontested acceptance of psychological ”expertise.“ How many times have you heard that the victims were referred for counseling, that the accused was ordered into treatment or that gender sensitivity training was made a condition of disciplinary action?

Psychology has a vested interest in identifying abuses of power in the broadest psychological terms possible. It is through this that ”victims“ are manufactured and then converted into patients/clients for whom psychological services must be purchased. And it is through this that psychologists come to be retained to testify in human rights hearings, civil proceedings and criminal courts. To put it in a visual form:

PERSON = VICTIM = PATIENT = PROFIT

Psychology promotes genderism and is actually guilty of victimizing women.It has become fashionable in the 90’s to be a victim. While I readily acknowledge that there are real victims who have suffered degradation, brutality and violence, I also know that there are many ”counterfeit victims“ who manipulate the system, intentionally lying with motives of revenge or greed or excuse-finding, and also, that there are vast numbers of what I call ”synthetic victims,“ those people who lie unintentionally, having been taught to think of themselves as victims and to make accusations and claims based on psychological interpretations of events.

Yvonne McEwen notes: ”The victim-makers in today’s world are inevitably the lawyers, doctors, psychologists, therapists, social workers and the radical left of the feminist movement.“

By turning all of life into psychological events, then pathologizing normal feelings and behaviours and generalizing psychological concepts so that ”trauma“ can refer as easily to having a fling with the boss as to being brutally raped, people are being persuaded to see themselves as victims. Rather than being allowed to assume responsibility for their own actions, they come to believe that they must be protected, nurtured and guided by others more powerful than them.

Each and every week, our papers carry articles describing victims of one type or another and many of these reports conclude that counseling should be provided, laws put in place, funds set aside for a healing process, or programs established to increase self-esteem, teach parenting skills, or combat violence.

Most of these reported victims are women and, interestingly, statistics show that 2 out of 3 psychotherapy consumers are women. It is women by and large who are being persuaded that they are weak, vulnerable, manipulated and fragile. And, contrary to common assumption, much of this persuasion is being done by women who themselves benefit from casting their fellow women in victim roles. It is largely female therapists, lawyers and advocates who encourage women to see themselves as victims and to complain, and to seek special consideration and compensation. It is also often female ”experts“ who use fear appeal to persuade women that they are victims.

For instance, the report prepared by the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, employing a ”feminist lens“ (more commonly labelled as ”bias“,) presented finding which made it seem that women across Canada stand a good chance of becoming crime victims. And, while mentioning that 52% of women in their study attributed their decreased sense of safety to media reports on violence against women, they chose to ignore recent sociological studies which suggest that it is the fear of violence rather than violence itself which is harming women by creating fear and causing them to see themselves as victims.

Psychology is an industry masquerading as a scientifically-based profession, and no matter how strongly psychological beliefs and theories are expressed as facts, there is little-to-no certainty in the field. My key point is that anything said by psychologists needs to be scrutinized carefully.

While undeniably, some individuals within the profession of psychology will violate current ethical codes; some will do their jobs poorly; some will make mistakes; and, some will even seduce or be seduced by their patients or by their students; please remember that these are only the ”trees.“ My hope is that your attention will not be forever diverted by these individual, and often sensationalized, cases because they serve to obscure our view of the bigger issue. The ”forest,“ in this instance, is the pervasive and socially sanctioned abuse of power, in the form of the profession’s influence on the public, the media and the courts. If we remain focused on the trees, the Psychology Industry will go unchallenged. Take a look at the larger picture and ask yourself whether we can afford, any longer, to remain blinded by the trees.

”Politicians are not born, they are excreted,“ said Cicero.

However unsanitary the metaphor, it is not gratuitous. Anyone who seeks coercive power over others (for reasons which include living off those others’ earnings), is truly despicable. By far the greater number of politicians the world over are in this category. In New Zealand, there are few who are not.

To anyone who holds freedom as sacred, the most urgent problem facing this country is the vile anti-individual philosophies of collectivism and statism that have given rise to this relentless onslaught of the government’s violation of individual rights, which includes the proliferation of intrusive, politically correct, government agencies charged with the ”responsibility“ of fixing all our problems.

To have the courage to see things as they are, in the light of lost freedom, is to acknowledge a grotesque level of corruption and injustice. To open one’s eyes and name these programs, agencies, and restrictions for what they are is to face up to a very difficult conclusion, one which offers little immediate comfort. Truly, that the New Zealand has reached this point is not easy to admit — and most have lost the knowledge of freedom along with their actual freedom. This is precisely the way the tyrant wins. What must it have been like as a citizen in the early Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? ”Surely,“ they must have thought, ”we won’t take things to extremes. Of course a Stalin (or a Hitler) is impossible! After all, this is Germany (or Russia, or Cambodia, or China …).“ How many cried out at the loss of their freedom, such as it was where there was any? This is the way the bloodiest oppression begins, unanswered by cries of protest.

What is being destroyed? It is very simple. The government is now operating on the assumption that you are not in control of your own life. What is being lost is your freedom to act, to live your own life, to find your own success. The means of the loss of this freedom is physical force — that is the only thing which destroys freedom.Politicians and journalists side-step the issue of freedom when identifying New Zealands essential nature.

Today, a law is seen as just, not because it protects liberty, but because it was democratically established. If you don’t like a law or official, one is told, too bad, you had a chance to vote against it. Thus, all that comes from government is good, for it is blessed by the ever-righteous vote. Not surprisingly then, politicians and the tyrants of the status quo eagerly embrace democracy alone as an ideal. To name the actual principle of liberty would too obviously condemn their own policies and positions, let alone the despotism of other countries. And while they clamour for ”social democracy” throughout the world, human lives are torn and destroyed.

The fast erosion of our rights and dignity on the part of ever-increasing government is testament to our neglect — not only in New Zealand, but world-wide.

I put it to you bluntly, that if you ’re too scared to openly argue for the merits of your goals - & would rather fudge them - then you neither believe in your purported goals, & nor do you understand them - and after all, if you’re too embarrassed to hold your ideas openly, then why the hell should anyone else give them any credence?

One must defend liberty at every opportunity, and never lose focus on its shining goal. One must live up to the courage that defied an empire. It is not too late. An individual can re-ignite a revolution.

=========================================================================

Have a nice day

watchingcyfs

Watching CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 6:51 AM in CYFSWATCH Media

FAMILY FIRST MEDIA RELEASE: 5 MARCH 2007

Bradford Anti-smacking Bill Will Result in Children Reporting Parents

Family First is warning politicians that an outcome of voting for Sue Bradfords anti-smacking bill is that children will report their parents to the police when they don’t like parental discipline and correction.

Prominent QC Peter McKenzie, in his opinion released last week, highlights this when he says: complaints may be made by children who have resented their means of correction or denial of privileges.

And this is consistent with international experience, says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Supt Logan, the deputy borough commander in Hackney, east London and Britain’s most senior black policeman said at the weekend(1) that parents no longer use physical punishment because they fear they will end up in court facing an assault charge. He said that the results have been a decline in respect, a rise in family breakdowns and an increasing number of children being put up for adoption. He made these comments during an inquiry into patterns of crime among black men.

In Sweden (where smacking was banned in 1979), the Nordic Committee for Human Rights says(2) : Children have been informed of their rights and so they use their rights to demand more freedom to do as they please. They report their parents in the aim of obtaining freedom, unaware of the consequences of their report to the social authorities or the police & when the children realise the seriousness of their accusations they try to withdraw them, but they are held to their stories - without any consideration of the damages that the children themselves incur.

The resentment that the parents feel towards their children whose unacceptable behaviour was the direct cause of the charges against the parents, has resulted in the loss of normal, loving parental guidance for these children. The guilt felt by the children has also seriously damaged the parent/child relationship. (cases in detail below)

Mr McCoskrie says that if politicians pass Sue Bradfords bill, it will only increase the likelihood of disgruntled children making complaints against their parents because of resentment against correction, time out, or denial of privileges.

This will pit children against their parents, and will place parents under extreme pressure, says Mr McCoskrie. This would be a totally unacceptable situation for parents who need a level of authority in order to raise their children in the best environment possible. It is already happening in NZ, with the recent example of a teenager effectively ‘divorcing’ her parent because she didn’t like the family rules.

In an attempt to protect children from the small minority of parents who are obviously unsuitable to hold the responsibilities of parenting, we are steam-rolling good parents who deserve the backing of the state – not undermining and potentially criminalising.

Mr McCoskrie says that a childs rights should never be at the expense of the parental right to nurture, protect and set boundaries in a family setting. Rights of children have been shifted from simply protecting vulnerable children to granting them rights that are destructive to them, to good parenting practice, and to the welfare of the whole family in which they are being raised.

ENDS

(1) A smack can keep children from crime says police leader – Sunday Telegraph 4 Mar 07 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JXNKZL4HBM443QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/04/nsmack04.xml

(2) http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm

For more information contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP - NATIONAL DIRECTOR
Tel. 09 261 2426 Mob. 027 55 555 42

SWEDISH CASES (in detail)

Teacher case - (B 2637/92 Gothenburg District Court)

In September 1992 a teacher was convicted and fined for having maltreated his 12 year-old son. The parents - both intellectuals - had made certain rules as regards the tidying of the children’s rooms and watching the TV. The children were not allowed to watch TV all evening, and their TV-time was restricted to 2 hours per evening including playing computer games.

On April 9, the father told his son to turn off the tv and empty the garbage. The boy refused to comply, so his father turned off the tv, removed the boy bodily from the sofa, put the garbage bag in his hand and shoved him towards the door. The boy cried and the following day he went to the police and reported being beaten and kicked - that he had been maltreated by his father.

The boy informed his father that he had reported him to the police, and the father explained what the consequences could be. The boy rushed off to the police station to withdraw his statement but instead, that resulted in the father also being charged for interfering in due process.

————————————————————————————————————————

The Pre-school teacher case - (B 5050/92 Gothenburg District Court)

A young Finnish pre-school teacher was accused of maltreating her 12 year old daughter who always kept on stealing and running away from home. The mother and daughter have been living in Sweden for 6 years and the child was emotionally disturbed because of alleged sexual abuse from her father (the parents divorced before mother and daughter moved to Sweden).

Once when the girl had run away from home she was taken care of by the police and the social authorities in Falkping. The girl then said that she was afraid to return home because her mother would be angry with her for having run off once again, that her mother would perhaps smack her.

The policeman then advised the girl of her rights according to the law, and that her mother was not allowed to even lay a finger on her - only talk to her. She was also encouraged to go to the police and report her mother if ever she should lay hands on her.

A few weeks later, the girl ran off once again and when she finally returned home late that night she was very provocative. Her mother became angry and physically punished her. The girl went to the police the next morning and filed charges against her mother.

The mother was found guilty of maltreatment.

————————————————————————————————————————

The Hlsingborg Case - (Order of summary punishment (Straffrelggande) 1252-882-84)Hlsingborgs District Attorney issued an order of summary punishment on May 23, 1984 against a Swedish father for physically punishing his 12 year old.

The boys friends used to call the familys telephone so often that the parents decided to get a secret number. The boy was told not to give the number to his friends. On April 27, 1984, when a call came for the boy, his father accused him of having given the new telephone number to his friends.

When the boy denied doing this, his father accused him of lying and physically punished him. His mother saw what had happened and instructed the boy to report his father to the police. The family then sat down to dinner and an hour later the boy went to the police and reported his father.

The mother was interrogated by the police on May 14, 1984. The police asked her if she had been aware of the consequences of a report to the police. She replied: I was not, but I thought that the police would talk to Dad, and give him a warning so that he wouldn’t do it again. If we had known that it would go as far as this, we would never have reported the incident. It would have remained within the family.

Copeland: Clarification over Sue Bradfords Bill

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 9:27 AM in CYFSWATCH Media

Copeland: Clarification over Sue Bradfords Bill
Monday, 5 March 2007, 12:13 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Monday, 5th March 2007

Clarification: Sue Bradfords Bill

United Future MP Gordon Copeland today said he wanted to clarify the context in which he sought an opinion from Peter McKenzie QC concerning the criminalisation, as an assault, of ime-out in Sue Bradfords Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

The text of the Bill itself makes it clear that the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction is not available for time-out or similar, said Mr Copeland. It therefore constitutes a criminal assault. Correction is what time-out or a naughty mat is all about.

The report of the Law Commission dated 8 November 2006, signed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, from which the wording of the Bill is derived, makes that clear. For example, paragraph 7 states that: the Bill does not contemplate the use of parental force against children for the purposes of correction. Paragraph 10 states: the use of force by parents against a child is only justified for specified non-disciplinary purposes. The essence of this option (i.e. the Bill) is to offer protection for good parenting interventions, short of correction.

Paragraph 12 specifically refers to time-out in the following sentence: In the event of a potentially ambiguous situation such as time-out where there may be a mix of motives, subsection (3) seeks to ensure that parents cannot rely upon a corrective purpose for their actions.

Accordingly, from day 1, it has been clear to me that Sue Bradfords Bill is not only anti-smacking but also anti-correction and anti-discipline. However, because all of this is so absurd I realised that going public with that information could expose me to potential ridicule because the public would judge that only a Parliament of the insane would be intent on criminalising these activities.

It was for that reason that to be sure to be sure as the Irish say, I sought the opinion of a Queens Council.

Fortunately, perhaps because they themselves realised how absurd this Bill would become, the Law Commission suggested a reasoned alternative which has now become the Chester Borrows Amendment. That amendment is a good, commonsense, compromise and could be supported by all Members of Parliament.

ENDS

Baldock Brilliant.

As posted on CYFSWATCH NZ

Monday, March 5, 2007 am31 9:34 AM in CYFSWATCH Commentary

Big ups to former United Future MP Larry Baldock for his initiative in asking people to sign the referendum petition on 4 Air New Zealand flights.
Now that is what we call effective activism!

CYFSWATCH.

Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

Monday, 5 March 2007, 11:22 am

Press Release: Green Party

5 March 2007 Air NZ allows snakes on their planes

Air New Zealand must apologise to its passengers and publicly distance itself from the actions of those pilots who allowed former MP Larry Baldock to carry out political campaigning on its planes, the Green Party says.

Ms Bradford has formally complained to Air New Zealand that Mr. Baldock was permitted to go up and down the aisles on several Air New Zealand flights, handing out pamphlets and voicing his opposition to Ms Bradford’s bill to repeal S59 of the Crimes Act.

“This is an air safety issue, among other things. I find it incredible that any Air New Zealand captain would allow passengers to be subjected to political campaigning on a deeply divisive issue, while the plane is in mid air. People hold strong feelings, and there was a clear potential for arguments or fights,” Ms Bradford says.

“While in flight, passengers are told to kept their seat belts fastened. They do it for their own safety, not so they will be turned into a captive audience for political partisans.

“Air New Zealand needs to condemn this lapse of judgement by its pilots and apologise to the passengers concerned. Or are to we take it that Air New Zealand now considers that its passengers should be fair game for any political or religious zealots on friendly terms with their cabin staff?

“Mr Baldock and his ilk have been playing on fears that are totally unfounded. The opposition to my bill has delighted in spreading willfully inaccurate information that good parents will be criminalized for lightly smacking their children. As the Police Minister recently indicated, the police do not mount prosecutions on the basis of trifling complaints.

“Putting a child on a time out mat will not become a criminal offence either. In two separate clauses, the bill allows for parents to use reasonable force to prevent a child from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour, or from interfering with the parent’s ability to perform their daily parenting tasks.

“Right now though, passengers need to know they can board an Air New Zealand flight without being subjected to scare-mongering from snake-oil salesmen, blessed by Air New Zealand captains. I call on Rob Fyfe to inform the travelling public just what its official policy is on in-flight politicking, and what it aims to do to discipline its wayward pilots.”

ENDS

CYFSWATCH HAS RETURNED

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand


CYFSWATCH HAVE RETURNED

www.cyfswatch.org

CYFSWATCH New Zealand’s re-launch

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand

CYFSWATCH New Zealand’s re-launch

CYFSWATCH now has an independent dedicated server and URL offshore.

We will re-launch the site by the end of the week.

Stay tuned for the URL

CYFSWATCH

UPDATE FROM CYFSWATCH New Zealand

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Where has www.cyfswatchnz.wordpress.com gone?

CYFSWATCH NZ are currently in a none too subtle game of "whack-a-mole" with the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry responsible for CYFS. It seems as if there are some very motivated Government individuals who are determined to remain unaccountable to the NZ public about their gross abuses of children and families in New Zealand.

We have posted this page here to advise our readers that:

1/ The entire blog content has been saved, and so can be re-published, anywhere, at any time.

2/ We are at this stage unsure of what transpired over at wordpress. We did not delete the blog. We have contacted wordpress and asked if they can advise us as to what did happen.

3/ If it wasn't wordpress who deleted the site, then we have to surmise that an external party was responsible for the act.

4/ This message is posted on blogger for convenience. We do not intend re-launching the blog on Google.

Contact us at cyfswatch@hotmail.com if you have any more questions.

UPDATE:March 1st, 2007 at 9:35 am

From: CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH emailed wordpress in order to ascertain what had happened to the CYFSWATCH blog. What follows is what we believe is a somewhat chilling and eerie reply: it looks as if someone in the NZ Government leaned very, very heavily on wordpress - we have asked for a more detailed explanation, as it does not appear that we breached any of the TOS.

The power and influence the NZ Government is exercising in the jurisdiction of other countries regarding the cyfswatch blog seems truly frightening - we are starting to feel as if we are residents of North Korea.

From wordpress:

Hi,I’m sorry but we were advised that we had to remove the blog.

There was no room to move on that.

We do believe in free speech but in this case we had no options.

Sorry….

-Mark

Now, compare the above response with our previous correspondence with Mark at wordpress:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease. If we ascertain that the information is not in the public domain, or could not be sourced in the public domain, then we would not publish said information to the blog.

Does this apprpoach keep us within the TOS of Wordpress?

If you guys do receive any complaints about information on CYFSWATCH, would you be able to let us know, so that we can respond responsibly to the complaint, and amend / delete information as required to by the TOS?

Our site has a lot of media attention in New Zealand, and we want to be seen to be doing the right thing. We were originally hosted by Google, however our site was closed down by Google as they thought we had posted an illegal comment - the NZ police came out in the public media 2 hours after we were shut down and said that no illegality had occurred - so we guess that Google just ended up looking stupid, because they then said in the media that we were welcome to re-post our blog on Google!

We chose Wordpress instead.

Please advise.

CYFSWATCH

From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com

Reply-To: support@wordpress.com

To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com

Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:

Enquiry regards blog management and terms of service>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:51 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for the note.

Confidentiality and Copyright are the two areas you need to be most careful about.

If you can be sure that your email address in the blog is correct too in case we need to contact you that would be good.

Mark


Thanks Mark.

CYFSWATCH

>From: "Mark @ Wordpress.com" support@wordpress.com

Reply-To: support@wordpress.com

To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com

Subject: [WordPress #PSN-167138]:

Enquiry regards blog management and terms of serviceDate: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:24:40 +0000

Hi,>

"The guideline we are using for confidentiality is the question "is this information already available within the public domain?" eg electoral roles, public websites, phone books, directories, etc that a reasonable person could access with reasonable ease."

That is okay.

If you can link to the source in the post that would be even better.

Otherwise they say you broke it, we ask you, you tell us, we tell them and that can take time.

But speech is free, opinion is free and we take the view that blogs are there to speak :)

Mark

So CYFSWATCH asks - who put the acid on wordpress?

UPDATE:

We have received an open letter which the author has requested be published:

Open Letter To WORDPRESS, Google and the NZ Government:

To whom it may concern;

Firstly, to wordpress, you claim you "had no option" but to close down the CYFSwatch blog.

You are wrong, you always have options. The fact that you caved in so easily to the NZ Government does you no favours for the future.

You will now, along with Google, will always be seen as easy meat to blackmail by corrupt Governments.

Google knows this only too well, after the Chinese Government forced them to hand over details of Chinese bloggers critical of the communist state.

The fact that these people thought Google would never sell them out is a matter of deep shame to Google, these bloggers are now in prison thanks to them putting money ahead of free speech.

WORDPRESS had the option of holding firm and not caving in. At least Google lasted longer and in the end, was lied to by our Ministry of Social Development. (the death threat which wasn't, at least our Police said no laws had been broken)

To WORDPRESS, GOOGLE and The NZ GOVERNMENT, I say this.

The CYFSwatch blog was naming and shaming social workers. SO WHAT! The fact is that people were posting on the blog saying that not all social workers are bad, and that CYFS isn't all bad... we agree!

Its not all bad and there are good social workers. Had CYFSwatch *NOT* named the bad social workers, then suspicion would have fallen on ALL social workers. By naming the bad social workers means that the NZ Government has a basis to conduct an investigation into those who are named as being bad, the blog detailed the crimes and that's a whole lot better than not having the names of those accused of corruption or the crimes listed.

The fact is, the NZ Government can close this blog down simply by investigating the details as published by CYFSwatch, its that simple. The NZ Government would say that there are avenues for people, who feel they have been wronged, to go down as far as laying complaints goes. WRONG.

You see, the NZ Government also has a choice, they can continue to cover up these abuses of power and pretend its not happening, or it can take action, not against the blog, but in representing its people and giving them a system that works.

At present, all complaints are dealt with "in house" meaning its social workers investigating social workers, and because of that, not one social worker has ever been reprimanded let alone sacked from the position they hold. In fact, this Blogs stand has been to demand an INDEPENDENT complaints authority for the Child, Youth and Families service.

To date, that has been ignored. The fact also is that politicians are ignoring the cries of justice from the parents, because if the number of abuses came to light, this would be highly embarrassing for the Government.

The fact that 83% of the people who, voted on a Television NZ website poll in FAVOUR of allowing the blog to stay open is indication of the need in NZ for this to be aired. Its also an indication that the Ministry of Social Development doesn't represent the people of New Zealand on its endeavors to close the blog.

Is there a need for this blog? YES. I said recently in a message on the blog that Australia was recently shamed to the world for its actions in the 1960's and 70's where it removed children for no good reason from Aborigine families and placed them with white families. It was, as reported, a form of genocide.

That has been called "the stolen generation" by the authors of history. We face a similar situation in New Zealand today. had the Australians had the Internet back then, and had there been a blog dedicated to shaming the Australian Government, then they would be called HEROES today, while the Government, Google and wordpress would be shamed. Only history will be able to lay blame and guilt over this latest episode.

What we need is an internet company to have the courage to stand up to the bullying NZ Government. Worse yet, is that many authors who had pieces posted on the CFSwatch blog who never once named and shamed anyone, are also affected by this censorship. You have denied my right to be heard, I for one was a voice of calm who posted what they thought (the whole idea of a blog) but all my posts have also been affected by the blog being deleted.

This is not fair, and it sets an unwelcome precedent for bloggers all over the world, and yes, I for one will make sure the world knows the facts behind this, because I will tell them as often as I can. The fact is, I gave the people on that blog my Email, and after Google closed it (based on lies) I was told by many people that they had deleted their Google search bar, deleted their Google Gmail accounts, and deleted their adsense accounts. I also know many that will now boycott the Google website, they will use Yahoo from now on.

Theres a few wordpress blogs that will also move in protest when they find out how free speech was stomped on. My personal website will now be anti Google and anti wordpress in protest.

GIVE US THE BLOG BACK AND LET FREE SPEECH RULE!!!!!!

KIWI 1960

CYFSWATCH

CYFSWATCH New Zealand HAS GONE AGAIN ???????????????

Source: WATCHINGCHYFSWATCH New Zealand

CYFSWATCH New Zealand HAS GONE AGAIN ???????????????

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 28th, 2007

Has CYFSWATCH New Zealand been got at ????????????????????

Its gone again

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WATCHINGCYFSWATCH New Zealand is still in operation

Children’s Commissioner hires staff for CYF complaints

Children’s Commissioner hires staff for CYF complaints
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro has employed a full-time staff member to handle the 400 complaints a year it receives about the Child, Youth and Family service.

More…

CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

I speak on my own behalf and not CYFSWATCH

In one sense CYFSWATCH has done Sue Bradford a big favour alerting her to the fact that there could be a plot agaisnt her.

Why do we shoot the messenger?

The sentiments posted probably are NOT the views of CYFSWATCH, but a third party.

There may be many people who privately feel the same and have the same sentiments.

Are the Ploice going to hunt them all down???????? only time will tell.
——————————————————————————————
As police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.
——————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————
In my humble opinion,its disappointing that in a country like New Zealand that we resort to this level of disgrace in terms of a “name and shame” of CYFS employees who are just doing their job.

But since when is it right and just to make such life-affecting decisions that have caused so much damage to families and children based on whishy washy theories which have no bases in fact whatsoever. It is no excuss to just say “I was only doing my job” when it turns to custard. As i recall many of the German officers in various war crime trials used the same defence, ” I was only following orders”. It does not wash.

Every person in CYFS are each accountable for every choice they make, and must take full responsability for their actions. They can learn a lesson from the Brittish workers that had the moral fortatude to get out when they saw how unethical it was within CYFS.

It is not a disgrace to expose the evil that goes on behind closed doors, it is a disgrace that such evil exisits and certian people wish to keep it hidden behind closed doors.

It is the duty of anyone that sees things going so wrong to say someting about it, or should i say shout it from the rooftops. To stay silent on such a matter infers that you approve, or, at least, that you do not care for it. It is an old maxim that silence is consent.

It is a maxim of law that if a man knows of a murder about to be committed and does not use means to prevent it, he shall be held accessory before the fact. If he knows of murder which has been done, and does not endeavor to bring the criminal to justice, he is accessory after the fact.
If some CYFS workers feel some shame a guilt so be it.

The only time most people will feel true shame and guilt is when they have done something wrong and their conciences are pricking them.

Now for s59 I think Sue Bradford has said herself that her bill will not stop or eliminate the culture of violence against our children.

No amount of legislation that is past is ever going to stop it no matter what you do it will always be there.

In fact smacking is a legitimate from of discipline when used the right way. As Sue Bradford can’t discern what is the difference bettween what is legitimate smacking and violence her solution is to call it all abuse etc and that should be outlawed.

Well here is some news for her in some situations the only right and legitimate course of action would be to smack the child. Failing to do that would be child abuse.

Just as it would be wrong not to expose and to keep silent about the evil abuse that is being perpatrated on our famlies and children by CYFS etc. It would be evil abuse if you didn’t exersice proper discpline (including smacking) to our children.

CYFS reaction is interesting indeed, it is one of cover up and shut down any voices that wish to expose them. There is not an ounce for backbone to come clean and face the cold light of day.

When the spotlight of truth shines it shows what is there in the darkness.

People when confronted with the light (truth) react by either attacking it,running from it, or embracing it. We have seen the first two but not the third from CYFS.

So i think in this instance Sue Bradford should be thankfull to CYFSWATCH as to warn her of might have been a real threat. I don’t think any level headed person including CYFSWATCH would agree that either threatening or murdering anyone is the right thing to do.

I believe CYFSWATCH can not take responsability for any one elses actions but there own.

So why shoot the messenger????????????

Police say website comments not illegal

Police say website comments not illegal
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

Police say website comments not illegal

By MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA Thursday, 22 February 2007

A website that carried a posting by someone who said they wanted to beat up Green Party MP Sue Bradford has been closed.

ANTI-SMACKING BILL SET TO BECOME LAW

It was unclear if it the closure of the Cyfswatch website was permanent.

Meanwhile, police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.
Police diplomatic protection squad Sergeant Ron Lek told NZPA that the posting was written in such a way it skirted breaking the law.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The legislation takes away the defence of reasonable force against assault of a child under Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford’s bill passed its second reading last night, to move one step closer to becoming law.

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

As posted on Kiwi1960.com. The proactive protesting site.

In Defence Of CYFSwatch (the blog)

Posted bykiwi on Wednesday, February 21 @ 21:02:08

Contributed by kiwi

(sent to CYFSwatch blog for publication. I hope they DO publish this)

Its interesting to see that CYFSwatch really knows how to play the media, and play it they have, because it seems that M/s Bradford wasnt told by the Helen Crak NOT to mention this blog, and in so doing, again, it hits the media.

Thankyou M/s Bradford.

But some of the comments I read on this blog are from people entirely missing the point.

Firstly, I see nothing wrong in the first blog entry which mentioned doing violence to M/s Bradford, its a symptom of the anger in our soicety against this bill, and its better to voice that anger than actualy going out and doing it (which I wouldnt condone)

The second blog entry asking for M/s Bradfords pesonal details, well, I’m in two minds on that one. If politicans want to intrude into peoples private lives then they must pay a price, protest outside their homes is a fitting punishment.

Why do people assume that the first blog entry and the second one are connected? They may not be. But again, people are missing the point.

We live in a nanny state, Politicans like M/s Bradford are telling the people of New Zealand what to do, when to do it and so on. This law is one in a long line of laws that invade our private lives, we are the most regulated people on the planet.

We have stupid laws as it is, this “smacking” law is the latest, and Helen Clark now wants to tell us what light bulbs we can us by outlawing cheap standard bulbs. We will all be forced into buying the more costly energy saving bulbs, but Helen doesnt care about the price, her Government collects GST on each bulb sold. Same with new laws about how nosiy your car can be, and that people will soon have to have a compulsory tune up when they apply for a warrant of fitness.

These laws, on the one hand, are a revenue rasing scheme, but on the other, its telling us what to do. You see, we cannot be trusted to think for ourselves, we cannot be trusted to make the right choices, and that brings us to M/s Bradfords stupid law.

Any parent that “smacks” their child to the point of that child being admitted to hospital CAN, as it stands, be prosecuted under the law, even smacking a child for no reason is cause enough for CYFS to step in and claim child abuse. Face it, the child is already protected under our laws, so why do we need another one?

I’ll tell you why, its because these politicans need to justify their existance on this planet, and also, as I said, we cannot be trusted to live our lives the way we want. The end result of this law will be that CYFS can claim in the Family Court, with NO evidence to back it up, that the parents smacked their child, and the Judge, who would have laughed before this law comes into effect, will be obliged to “protect the child” while its investigated. Once in the system, the parents will not see their child again.

We cannot even be trusted to raise our children. The Government, in the form of CYFS, knows better who can and cannot be a good parent. M/s Bradford would be better employed to suggest laws to make CYFS more accountable. You see, more children are killed while under CYFS care, either actualy IN their care, or the family is recieving “help” from CYFS. Thats a more fitting problem for M/s Bradford to tackling.

In Masterton, FOUR children were killed and CYFS was involved in each one (theres probably more, but these made national news). Lillybing was the first. Coral Burrows wont be the last either.So while parents can and WILL be prosecuted, CYFS will still be running amok in our society. Has anyone ever heard of a social worker being prosecuted for putting a child in a foster home where that child was sexualy or physicaly abused? No, because its yet to happen. THATS where M/s Bradford could do some good. THAT law would be popular.

Face it New Zealand, we dont even have the right to protest anymore! This blog is proof of that, Peter Hughes wanted it closed down and had Google been a New Zealand company, it would have been. Even when we do protest, the Government makes light of it, ” a bunch of malcontents” and “they dont have all the information” and “The National Party is behind this” are some of the comments Helen Clark uses to IGNORE all protests.

So, this blog at least lets us be heard. M/s Bradford for one must read this blog (Hello Sue!!!) so its a good way to let those we elect hear what concerns us the most.

Don’t forget too, that before she became an MP, M/s Bradford was one of us, she was a protestor, and an advocate of the Unemployed Workers Union.
What she wants to deny us is what she did nearly every week while she was unemployed. She knows how the game is played, she knows very well that she didnt need to feel afraid, but she went on TV saying her life is now in danger, well, thats one way to get the public behind an unpopular bill she is promoting, like I said, she knows how the game is played.

What was said on this blog is MILD compared to what I have heard people say in public, and lets face it, it wont stop the child bashers one bit, they will keep on doing what they do REGARDLESS of this law. So why have it? This is why I support this blogs right to say what it did, whether or not I agree with it, because till this Government starts listening to the people of New Zealand then what other option is there and the Government can expect a lot more of this kind of thing, because protesting to deaf ears doesnt get anyone anywhere, but M/s Bradford surely DID hear a threat to her life, even if she did slightly overreact.

It looks like thats the ONLY way these bunch of no hopers in parliament ever WILL listen to us. By making our point, and adding a threat. I dare anyone to say that the poll saying 80% of the people opposed to this bill had any impact on M/s Bradford, and I dare anyone to say that this blog ALSO didnt have a MASSIVE impact on M/s Bradford. Its amazing what impact a few words will have on those we elect.

At least we now know that the no hopers we are suckered into electing read this blog.

Thats good!

kiwi1960

Yep Gone Gone Gone

Yep Gone Gone Gone

Google has shut down the controversial Cyfswatch website because of threats posted on the blog site yesterday against Green MP Sue Bradford.

Google spokeswoman Victoria Grand said the US-based giant had previously censored postings that breached its terms of service but had now closed the site permanently because of “repeat violations”.

She said Google investigated the site when the New Zealand Ministry of Social Development first complained about it last month, and again after the ministry lodged a new complaint about the postings threatening Ms Bradford yesterday.

Cyfswatch said yesterday that it had details of Ms Bradford’s home address and would post them unless she withdrew her “anti-smacking” bill. The bill, removing a defence for parents against assault charges if they used reasonable force to “correct” their children, passed its second reading in Parliament by 70 votes to 51 last night.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Social Development said the ministry would not comment on the site’s shutdown.

Cyfswatch, whose authors have always remained anonymous, issued a statement today saying Google’s action was “a breathtaking display of socialist censorship”.

It said a mirror site was now available.

Google’s terms of service prohibit the posting of content that is “unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable”.

Where is CYFSWATCH????????????????????

It seems that CYFSWATCH has been removed overnight.
Another blow for Free Speech in New Zealand.

New CYFSWATCH Yahoo Group started.

As posted on CYFSWATCH

Description:In defence of CYFSWATCH New Zealand and Free speech.

Group Email Addresses:

* Post message: watchingcyfs@yahoogroups.com
* Subscribe: watchingcyfs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
* Unsubscribe: watchingcyfs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
* List owner: watchingcyfs-owner@yahoogroups.com

Posted by cyfswatch at 20:19

Your Views: Row over site critical of Cyfs

Row over site critical of Cyfs

Thursday January 25, 2007

Five years after their baby son died in state care, a West Auckland family has hit back at the social workers involved by naming them on a renegade website aimed at holding such people to account.

What do you think of this?

Send us your views
Read the story

Here is the latest selection of your views:

H
I am a married 19 year old and I got given my sister because my mother couldnt handle her shoplifting. I then put her under some strict rules which seemed to be working, until a CYFS councilor told me I had serious mental issues for someone my age and needed to see a doctor to get medication(I am actually a pretty well adjusted person). She then got given to my aunt, who sees my sister as nothing but extra income, and my sister still has no-one to address her problem of shoplifting. My mother has called CYFS repeatedly to get them to address the problem, and they have only contacted her now because my aunt cannot handle my sister, and now wants to dump her back on my mother. It seems strange that CYFS is supposed to be helping my sister through her problems, yet she is the one who is being ignored.

Joy
New Zealand has such a poor record for abuse of children. But now it seems that the organisation which holds itself up as the ultimate child caring one is partly to blame for it. I feel sorry for the parents, for the children and for those many social workers who do have integrity and justice in their hearts. Their bullying colleagues have let everyone down. Lets hope their managers see fit to redeploy them and rebuild CYFs tattered reputation.

Lloyd
High time some of these seemingly inadequate people were held accountable. If they do a good job, they should not have too much of a worry. There will always be the odd person that goes over the top with their criticism, & they should be dealt to as well. From the top down, NZ is infested with faceless bureaucrats that ride roughshod over the ordinary & generally law abiding Kiwi.

Kristina Harrison
I fully support the naming and shaming of CYFs social workers. When kids are dying after CYFs have been called with concerns obviously something is not right. When non-custodial fathers are being told that the only reason they are ringing CYFs with concerns about their children is because they are overbearing, there is a problem. When kids are dying in the care of CYFs approved homes, there is a problem. The government should be getting rid of people who are assisting in the abuse of our children by their inaction or prejudices, rather than trying to pass a bill through parliament that allows us to make criminals of good parents.

Mark
Great job, about time, well done.

Sharon
Cyfs should be held accountable for these children who apparently slip through the net and end up dead.

James
It is interesting that the CYFS workers and PSA are so concerned about a blog that personaly identifies poorly performing staff. I am a teacher and myself and every other teacher has a page on the website www.ratemyteachers.co.nz in which teachers are criticised--several quite severely and many unjustly.There has been not horror and action to take this website down. CYFS workers need to get used to the way things happen in the 21st centry and stop being so precious and get on with improving their performance like the teachers website has prompted them to do.

Errol
Peter Hughes has hit the nail on the head. All responsibility for child abuse should rest squarely on the shoulders of the parents and adults in the house. If it were not for the neglectful, errant, irresponsible and downright cruel behaviour of some of our parents , there would not be the need to have an organisation like CYF in the first place. The numbers speak for themselves . New Zealand has the highest rate of child abuse in the world, therefore its no wonder that CYF is overworked and their attention spread thin over the number of cases each officer can handle. If they get some wrong , who is to blame. We can keep pointing fingers at the government, underbudgeting , lack of workers, nurses and the whole shebang of excuses but the fact remains that the blame lies with us as parents and caregivers. If a couple of seconds of orgasmic pleasure experienced one drunken afternoon results in the birth of a child then maybe we as a society should take a long hard look at ourselves and ask some serious questions about the choices we are making . That blog should be wiped off cyberspace and that family be prosecuted for scandal.

Dave
If they want to name and shame social workers why dont we have an identical site naming and shaming families who have had their children removed and why? Its only fair to have both sides to the story.