The Trying Times

Probably the best commentary in the world


Submissions and Section 59

reporter: Jonathan, 27.2.06

Well I've sent away my submission, as below with a few minor changes. It's the first submission I've done, so was quite exciting. I would encourage you all to get involved with submissions on topics you feel strongly about. Go to this page and you can see a list of what submissions are being called for.

For those who are curious about public opinion on the repeal of section 59. Here are the results of some polls

A Stuff online poll found that %83.8 were opposed to the banning of smacking.

A TV1 online poll found %93 of respondents in favour of being able to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

A NZ Herald Digipoll found %71 were against repealing section 59 and only %21 in favour.

There you have 3 polls where the question was put in 3 different ways. Every time there is an overwhelming response that New Zealand does not want Section 59 repealed. However, our current Labour government has proven to us before that public opinion does not mean much. Of course they all know so much more and have a superior grasp on reality than us general public. Yeah Right!

Please pray about this Bill.

My Draft Submission

reporter: Jonathan, 23.2.06


To the Justice and Electoral Select Committee

On the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005


1. This is a personal written submission from Jonathan P Willis, ** ***** ****, ********, Auckland, New Zealand.


2. I do not support the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005.


3. Section 59 is not protecting abusers. It is clearly stated in this very same crimes bill that assault on a child is a crime. Assault is defined as an attempt or threat to cause injury on another. A smack that is administered using reasonable force is not intending to cause injury but is to correct the child. If a person is intending to cause injury when they use force on a child then they have already broken the law as it stands. There is no need to add, remove or change anything.

4. Removing Section 59 will turn good parents into criminals and take away from them some of the authority they need to raise their own children. Without Section 59 a parent is legally no more entitled to use force on their own child as they are to use force on anyone else. For example, should a child refuse to get into bed, the parent cannot use any physical force on the child. Picking up the child and placing them in their bed against their will is using force. The parent no longer has the law to protect them in doing this if Section 59 is repealed.

5. 'The police won't prosecute' argument. There is a common statement from supporters of this bill that the police won?t prosecute parents who lightly smack their children or that the police are too busy to investigate a small claim such as a smack. But these statements are irrelevant. Weather they do prosecute or if they don?t. Whether they have time to investigate or not. If section 59 is removed from the crimes act the law will still stand against any parent who uses any force as a way of correction. The fact remains that the police could prosecute people, and will be obliged to do so should a complaint be laid, making criminals out of people who are good parents.

6. Parent/Child relationships are important and unique. The relationship between a parent and a child is not the same as other relationships. The parent is responsible to care and nurture and protect their Child. To bring them up as someone who is useful to society. Because of the role the parent has in this relationship they need to be able to correct the child. It is quite clear to children that if they receive a smack that what they are doing is not what they are mean to be doing. Section 59 is special as there are not many other people who are given protection from the law to use force like parents are. Removing this section is, by law, making the Parent/Child relationship the same as any other and ignoring the important role the parent has to instruct and discipline the child. This will be detrimental to the family and to society overall.


7. I recommend that this bill is dismissed and that section 59 remains as part of the Crimes Act. The law already stands against those who abuse their children. Section 59 does not protect child abusers. It simply protects the role of the parent which is vital to the upbringing of future generations in a way that will be of benefit to society in the years to come.

Inflaming Fury

reporter: Jonathan, 17.2.06

I saw a headline in the Herald today - Photos "will inflame muslim fury"

This is refering to photos of Iraqis who have been bound up, forced to stand bent over, etc by western troops in Iraq.

Why is it quite normal and accepted that Muslims will get angry and riotous because of actions against their Culture, But we have to be tolerant?!?! Why are we labelled as 'Intolerant' and 'Racist' if we even make a broad factual statement in reference to the Muslim Culture and yet muslims, so it seems, are quite within their rights to murder others because of some cartoons?!?!

I'm not wanting to encourage western troops to abuse Iraqis! I don't know exactly what's going on. And I'm not for attacking muslims for fun! But how many videos do we have of Muslims beheading westerners? or storys of muslims attacking christians and westerners... and what?... nothing... no anger... no riots? Sure we should not be intolerant for the sake of it... but it's not ultimately the Muslims who are wanting us to be tolerant of them, although I'm sure they do. It's our dumb politically correct culture. Why can't we flaming stand up for ourselves with out being victimised by our own culture!

I heard a quote recently which seems as though it applies to our Western Culture:-

"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." - Arnold Toynbee


reporter: Jonathan, 17.2.06

Debt is bad kids

Don't do it!

No household slave can be the slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't be slaves to both God and money. - Luke 16:13

If you are in debt you are not in control of your finances and therefore a slave to money!

This is bad.

Who cares?

reporter: Jonathan, 14.2.06


I rode to work today... it took 30mins and now I'm complete stuffed, hot and bothered... hmm...

In other news... Congrats to the 'Misfits' who clocked up their first win of the season with a dominating 24-11 win over 'The Hornets'. Well done guys! For those of You who are unaware as to who the Misfits are, they are an indoor netball team which is the result of Alex's inspiration.

edited 15/02/06 - the final score was 24-11 not 23-11 as originally stated