Muriel Newman a lady I admire

Thanks, Peter - I posted the response on the NZCPD Forum for others to see.
Best wishes,
Muriel
Dr Muriel Newman
NZ Centre for Political Debate
http://www.nzcpd.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Burns
To: handsonequalparent-news@yahoogroups.com ; fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com ; nzfvl@yahoogroups.com ; muriel@newman.co.nz ; dad4justice@msn.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.




Emma Holmes wrote:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.

A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents , and giving the odd light smack.

I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.

I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However , I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good , ordinary , parents doing their best.

My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so , for example , the use of implements would be outlawed.

You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.


Regards
John Key MP





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Burns [mailto:dad4justice@yahoo.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, 17 March 2007 11:04 a.m.
To: handsonequalparent-news@yahoogroups.com; nzfvl@yahoogroups.com; dad4justice@gmail.com; muriel@newman.co.nz; Judith Collins; John Key; Judy Turner; TV One; Tariana Turia; editorial@investigatemagazine.com; fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com; CourtDads; dad4justice@msn.com
Subject: Nation wide march's for our parental rights.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=00019074-4A17-15FA-80E083027AF10130

We must preserve the Family Unit . This Bradford Bill will sentence more people to misery , particularly children and fathers .
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Subject: FW: PR: Borrows - Section 59 amendments explained
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:03:21 +1200
From: "Emma Holmes"
To: "Emma Holmes"




Chester Borrows
National Party MP

20 February 2007

Section 59 amendments explained

“I am seeking a sensible compromise with the amendments I intend to make to Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill,” says National MP Chester Borrows.

“The full National Party caucus supports my amendments, should the bill get to the committee stages.

“I regard my amendments as a commonsense compromise and hope that other MPs in Parliament see the sense in what I am proposing.

“Essentially, my bill alters what constitutes ‘reasonable force’.

“I do not want to see parents and guardians using the law to get away with committing serious assaults on children, so some amendment to the Crimes Act is desirable.

“But I believe that simply repealing section 59 is problematic in that it would leave the decision about whether to prosecute in the hands of the police.

“Parliamentarians make the laws of this land and they should spell out clearly what the law is. Leaving interpretation over to the police is unfair on both the public and the police.

“Parents should have some limited protections in law, rather than leaving it to the authorities to interpret. So my amendments would seek to limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.”

Ends

Inquiries: Chester Borrows 021 722 636

Attached: Supplementary Order Paper

John Key and Section 59 bill.

20 March 2007



Mr Peter Burns
Email: dad4justice@yahoo.com.au


Dear Mr Burns

Thank you for contacting me regarding Sue Bradford’s Member’s Bill proposing the repeal of Section 59. I have voted against the bill in previous stages and over 40 of my National Party colleagues have done the same. I will be continuing to vote this way, and will continue to make media comments against the bill. I am more constant on this issue than Helen Clark, who said prior to the election that she would not support such a bill.

A lot of people have spoken to me in recent months about this issue. I’ve heard from many who are worried they’ll be criminalised for being ordinary parents, and giving the odd light smack.

I’ve also heard from people who support the bill and think that no one should be able to hide behind Section 59 and get away with assaults on children. What people who support the Bill hope is that by changing the law we will send a message to all New Zealanders that child abuse is not acceptable.

I agree that a message needs to be sent. Child abuse is not acceptable. However, I do not believe the bill to repeal Section 59 will change anything for the children growing up in violent families. Nor do I see any good in criminalising good, ordinary, parents doing their best.

My colleague Chester Borrows is proposing an amendment to the bill. It is intended to be a sensible compromise, and I attach a copy for your information. The proposed amendments limit rather than abolish the use of reasonable force in disciplining children so, for example, the use of implements would be outlawed.

You will be aware that the debate on this bill has been extended due to the excellent work done in the House by my colleagues. This means the pressure can, and should, continue on the MPs who are working with the Greens in forcing this issue – specifically the Labour Party and Maori Party. Within the National Party several MPs have been given permission to vote for the bill. They have not taken this move lightly, and it has been the subject of much discussion within our caucus, but allowing people to follow their wishes on such votes is a long standing precedent within the Party. The Labour Party is not allowing such a process, and is forcing those MPs who do not agree with the bill to vote for it. The Maori Party has also come out for the bill, despite huge community concern. This means that Sue Bradford has the numbers to pass the bill, without any National support.


Yours sincerely



John Key
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the National Party

Ref: jj

Delayed justice is justice denied

Justice comes at too high a price: McLachlin
Katie Rook, National Post
Published: Friday, March 09, 2007
TORONTO - Middle-class Canadians are increasingly frozen out by the cost and complexity of Canada's judicial processes, Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said yesterday.

Many Canadians would have to consider remortgaging their home, gambling their retirement savings or forsaking their child's college fund to pursue justice, Chief Justice McLachlin told an audience of about 150 at the Royal York Hotel yesterday.

"Access to justice is quite simply critical. Unfortunately, many Canadian men and women find themselves unable, mainly for financial reasons, to access the Canadian justice system. Some of them become their own lawyers, or try to," she said.


Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin leaves the Royal York Hotel in Toronto yesterday after speaking at the Empire Club. She says the judicial system is getting too expensive for middle-class Canadians, who might have to remortgage their homes or spend all their savings to hire a lawyer and mount a defence.
"Hard hit are average middleclass Canadians."
Those with some income and a few assets may be ineligible for legal aid and therefore without choices, the Chief Justice said.

"Their options are grim: use up the family assets in litigation; become their own lawyers or give up. The result may be injustice."

Chief Justice McLachlin discussed how access problems, long trials, delays and deeply rooted social problems challenge a court system which, she said, is nonetheless the envy of other nations.

Injustice is, at times, compounded when people choosing to represent themselves are without the proper legal knowledge to do so. In some courts, almost half of cases involve a self represented litigant, she said.

"Putting the facts and the law before a judge may be an insurmountable hurdle.

The trial judge may try to assist, but this raises the possibility that the judge may be seen as helping or partial to that person. The proceedings adjourn or stretch out, adding to the public cost of running the court."

Criminal and civil trials are becoming increasingly lengthy. Cases which at one time were heard within seven days now take more than seven months to wind through the system, she said.

The mean elapsed time from first to last appearance for adult criminal court cases was more than seven months in 2003-04, up 14% from the previous year, according to data from the Canadian Centre for Judicial Statistics.

Prostitution, other sex-related offences and fraud cases take the longest time to resolve, an Adult Criminal Court Statistics report states. Criminal courts in 10 provinces and territories dealt with 450,000 cases stemming from more than one million charges in 2003-04.

References to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are adding to increased trial times, while changes in the law of evidence and the use of expert witnesses add additional delays, she said.

"As the delay increases, swift predictable justice, which is the most powerful deterrent of crime, diminishes. These personal and social costs are incalculable," the Chief Justice said.

"Whether the litigation has to do with a business dispute or a family matter, people need prompt resolution so they can get on with their lives. They cannot wait for years for an answer. When delay becomes too great the courts may no longer be an option. Many people look for other alternatives or they simply give up on justice," she said.


Apart from dissuading people from seeking justice, delays and high costs prevent the courts from dealing with some issues that deserve examination, she said.

"The fact is, I believe, some cases should go to court. They raise legal issues that should be considered by the courts for the good of the litigants and for the development of the law."

Chief Justice McLachlin lauded Ontario's Court of Appeal for considerably reducing delays in the past decade.

But cases involving drug addicts and the mentally ill continue to overwhelm Canadian courts, she said.

"Such people are not true criminals, not real wrong-doers in the traditional sense of those words. They become involved with the law because they are mentally ill, addicted or both."

She applauded the development of specialized courts, including mental health and drug courts, which help ease the load.

© National Post 2007