Nanny State's fascist anti-smacking bill

Mitch's picture
Submitted by Mitch on Wed, 2007-03-21 02:25

In response to the dictatorship's intention to take away a parent's right to smack their children, a march on Parliament is being organised for Tuesday 27th March Wednesday 28th March. Reports from the media suggest that up to 80% of people are opposed to Sue Bradford's bill, and in a somewhat pleasing development, some MPs have finally started kicking up a fuss.

For more information, or to help with the organisation of this march, please e-mail

If something isn't done about this now, next they will be telling us that due to high rates of "child abuse" (i.e. parents smacking their children for correctional purposes), you now need to apply for permission to HAVE children, and as an extension of this, you may need a permit for any act likely to lead to children.

If you have children, intend to have children, or are just flat out opposed to Nanny State, you MUST support this cause.

UPDATE: The March will start at 12pm at Wellington's Civic Square. NOTE: Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early. Another strong rumour is that Bob McCoskrie of Family First is organising an Auckland March. More details as they come to hand...

( categories: )

Congratulations Mitch!

Jameson's picture

Fantastic coverage! You stirred the masses off their arses and did something truly concrete in the war against Nanny! I applaud you and everyone who marched with you!

Bloody well done Mitch

Robert's picture

Good job that man there!

Final Update!

Mitch's picture

The march is almost upon us, and everything is ready to go. The march route will be: across Victoria Street, Mercer Street, Willis Street, Lambton Quay and on to Parliament Buildings. The police will be out, and there will be rolling closures of the roads to ensure that we have an unimpeded stroll to Parliament. There is also no hurry. It would normally take 15 mins to walk it, but the aim is to be at Parliament by 12:45pm, so don't race Smiling

I did a pre-recorded interview with Newstalk ZB today, and it will be aired tomorrow morning in Wellington. Just in case you want to tune in!
Also, Lindsay will be on Radio Live at 7:10am tomorrow morning.

For all those interested, check this out for some opinions of readers of the lefty Herald.

Also,I really recommend you read this, a very well written article:

The programme for tomorrow looks like this:

MC- Mr Lindsay Perigo
SPEAKERS (in order): Lindsay Perigo, Heather Roy, Larry Baldock, Chester Borrows, Christine Rankin, Bob McCoskrie.
Then we sing the National Anthem to finish.

It's time to beat back Nanny State! I hope to see you all there!

The short version of

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

The short version of Bradfords rather long winded hyper spin (which is full of outright lies) is that we're all too stupid to understand what we're marching for.

By the way I'm neither lib or Christian so I feel her comment has excluded me and I thought this socialist rabble were all about the inclusion!

Not one mention of podgey middle aged armourers anywhere. Clearly the government doesn't take this power voting block seriously!

While I wholeheartedly agree

Jameson's picture

with this march against Nanny State, to cut off her totalitarian tentacles probing us in our most private of places, I’m not sure smacking our children is necessarily, as Mitch suggests, a sign of loving them or raising them properly.

My mother belted me growing up – broke a wooden spoon across my hand once – and I can’t say it did me any real harm. Nevertheless, I’ve never smacked my kids, but rather employed reason and negotiation as a method of correction. For a while, during the ‘difficult’ stages, they were sent to the laundry outside – the bani-shed we called it – and they quickly learned that bad actions had unfortunate (and in their case mind-numbingly boring) consequences.

But good on you Mitch for getting off your ass and doing something concrete. Blast the bastards to hell!

The whole point...

Mitch's picture

is that with this law in force, a vast amount of the population are now going to be turned into criminals for loving their kids enough to raise them properly. The government/police/CYFS will be able to enter peoples homes because of this. How can we let these politicians criminalise decent people in this fashion!!!?

Oh My! The Fascists Are Fearful!! :-)

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Just out from the Green Party:


20 March 2007

Fear on the march

Green Party MP Sue Bradford is concerned that some of those planning to join next week’s marches against her repeal of the S59 defence for assaults on children, are not being told the full story by the organizers.

“I fully support the right to free speech, but am concerned that some of those marching may be responding to needless fears whipped up about the Bill, and its consequences,” Ms Bradford says.

“My Bill does not, and will not criminalise parents who lightly smack their children. It removes a defence for what has always been a technical assault. In addition, any sensible reading of the Police guidelines on prosecution will show that Police will exercise their discretion on this matter.

“This latest round of hysteria seems to have united the Christian fundamentalists with the libertarians – who normally baulk at anyone claiming to have a ‘God-given’ mandate for anything. It may be news to the libertarians, but the state has long had a role in the home, well before my Bill first saw daylight.

“Laws on incest, on domestic violence, and the requirements around ensuring the health and education of children are all examples of the state taking action within the home, to protect the vulnerable.

“This Bill is about the rights of children to grow free up from violence. My concern is that some people will be marching against phantom fears – and not against what the Bill really means,” Ms Bradford says.

“The press release announcing the march cites current polls showing 80 per cent opposition to my Bill.’ In fact, the 80 percent figure seems derived from a 2002 Justice Ministry report that found 80 percent of New Zealanders felt smacking a child with an open hand is acceptable. In its amended form my Bill does remove the right to use reasonable force for correction – but it contains four clauses stating other contexts where reasonable parental force is permitted.

“ The press release for the march also raises fears about good parents having their babies taken away under my Bill. Let me clear about this. Unless parents were seriously abusing their children that bogey – the Politically Correct are coming for your baby – will be no more likely if my Bill is passed than it is now.

“ The march spokesperson goes on to allege that my Bill compels the Police to get involved where they have no place and leaves them no discretion. In fact, we want the Police to investigate genuine cases of child abuse, where they most certainly do have a place.

“As the Law Commission has said, the Police have ample grounds for discretion, stated in their prosecution guidelines, to decide whether the public interest would be served by a prosecution,” Ms Bradford says.


Me: Uniting Christians and libertarians?! It unites everyone who objects to Nanny State poking her nose in when it's not justified. The present law allows for "reasonable force" before Nanny steps in. That's as it should be. Parenting is for parents.

Won't criminalise light smacking? This is 100% contrary to what Sue Bradford has said previously, particularly in response to the Chester Borrows amendment. On countless occasions she has been quite clear—ALL smacking (which she calls "assault") will be illegal:

"I remain absolutely committed to changing a law that, in its current state, allows a legal defence for parents who assault their children, when no such defence exists when we assault other adults, or animals. " (Greens' S 59 website.)

From Bradford's speech to Parliament, Feb 21:


As a result of the Committee process my original bill has been substantially amended. However, I would like to make it very clear that the bill which has come back to the House still clearly reflects my original intention, to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction.

Some supporters of repeal of s59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention, or in some way allows parents to legally still use force as punishment.

This is not the case. The intention of the new amendment is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining their children when – for example – they are acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves, or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification of the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child.

On the other hand, my Select Committee colleague from the National Party, Mr Chester Borrows, has made it very clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stages in the House aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction.

I will be fighting that amendment tooth and nail, as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against our children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning, but unfortunately, he, like others who want to somehow define reasonable force, doesn’t seem to accept or understand that this is the worst possible thing we could do.

The effect of any attempt to define reasonable force, including Mr Borrows’, is that we then have the state telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others, and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we wouldn’t consider using on adults who are actually much more able to look after themselves.

Defining acceptable force also undermines the fantastic work being done by church and community groups all over New Zealand teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that don’t involve the use of physical discipline.

Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time we gave children the same protection as we give adults, and bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence under section 59. ...

Finally, a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by police and prosecuted by courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child.

While it is true that, if this bill succeeds, use of force for correction will technically be an offence, this does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking this kind of action. Police investigate maltreatment of a child only after a complaint. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case, how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution.

Many minor and technical assaults take place in this country every day that are not investigated, and/or where no prosecution eventuates. This situation will not change with the passing of this bill.


Me: Police won't prosecute? The police have said unequivocally that the Guidelines will require them to arrest every parent about whom a complaint is made. Greg O'Connor, Police Association: "If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear—the offendeer must be arrested. That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."


Press Release. Released just after noon.

Mitch's picture


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.


For more information, see or e-mail

Mitch Lees
Phone: 027 243 1676

Coalition Against Nanny State's Anti-Smacking Law


Mitch's picture

We are well and truly up and running now! Press release to go out tomorrow, blog has been set up, and hopefully we will get some substantial media coverage.

The press release is a goody (cheers Linz and Luke), click here to have a read:


Well Glenn ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I spelled it out in plain language years ago in Craccum magazine, as reprised at the top of the page. Did it ever get through? You be the judge!

May I suggest

Jameson's picture

a media pack with big diagrams and kindergarten language?

Seriously though Lindsay, while it might be an impossible dream to get their heads around the definition of an Objectivist, wouldn't it be better if we could get these dickheads to at least call you (try not to choke) a Libertarian?

Are journos deliberately

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Are journos deliberately trying to marginalise - or are they just a bunch of dumbskis?

Both. They want to marginalise, and their eyes would glaze over if you tried to explain the "right-wing" thing.

No matter how many times you tell 'em...

Jameson's picture

A posting on the Solo website, founded by right-wing political commentator Lindsay Perigo, advertises a march to Parliament on the day of the bill's next debate.

Are journos deliberately trying to marginalise - or are they just a bunch of dumbskis?

Herald! :-)

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Word is spreading

Nah, we'll just make a

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

Nah, we'll just make a special sling and keep trying to we get it right.

Its a noble experiment worthy of our best efforts.

Note ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'll be on air next Wednesday, Radio Pacific Breakfast, substituting for Banks. Great opportunity to plug the march.


Will Katie have the oomph

Jameson's picture

to fire Sue Bradford through Frau Clark's 9th floor window - or is her arse too big?

My smaller engines - Chucky

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

My smaller engines - Chucky the mangonel and Tiny the trebuchet throw croquet balls. 300' and 120' respectively. The new design - Katie - has a 3 meter throwing arm so we'd be looking at heavier and further.

Probably 1 kg cement balls about 500' - 600'.

I'm hoping I'll be allowed to try some incendiary at a range weekend in May.

9th floor target...

Jameson's picture

BULLS-EYE! Frau Clark won't know what hit her!

Actually, on that point, what sort of projectile did you have in mind?

Funding... I need

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

Funding... I need funding.

Perhaps an arts grant for "cultural" needs.

Nine floors just seems like

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

Nine floors just seems like a good target to go for.

Well done, Mitch!

Jameson's picture

Will your trebuchet be ready in time, Murray?


Mitch's picture

The March will start at 12pm at Civic Square. NOTE: Wednesday the 28th! I don't want people turning up a week early Smiling

No reason?

Jameson's picture

Our aim here is to reach the "total passion for the total height," Murray -- I think your trebuchet will qualify admirably.

I'm working on a new

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

I'm working on a new trebuchet with a target height of nine stories... for no particular reason.

And welcome aboard

Jameson's picture

Murray "the catapult guy".

I'm sure we'll be able to make good use of your talents going forward against our common enemy, Frau Nanny.


Jameson's picture

if she enjoys it, Ross...

National's response

Ross Elliot's picture

Has Key said National will revoke this legislation if passed?

I'm not sure he's said exactly that. Konsensus Key will test the waters and suggest "modifications", just so as not to alienate any potential voter.

Clark should be hauled over the coals for reneging on her stated position. Or has she finally become so arrogant that it matters not.

NB: this doesn't make spanking your girlfriend illegal, does it?

Who's bringing the picnic basket.

Murray the catapult guy.'s picture

I'll be there.

At your service

Phil Howison's picture

Well Mitch, I'm at your service. Put me down for postering the university and the CBD, making placards, and even being a fluoro-vested marshal as per the council rules.

This bill must be stopped!

Today's developments

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Now the Prime Minister has come out and said a "light smack" will not be a criminal offence after all. She's reacting to the uproar yesterday, for sure, including the truly awesome outbreak of fury on Radio Live between 9 and noon! Smiling The police made it unambiguously clear yesterday that if they receive a complaint about a "light smack" they'll be obliged to make an arrest. And they're right. That's what the legislation says. This will be neighbour-dobs-in-neighbour a la East Germany/Soviet Union et al. And when the police have carted off the parent(Drunk, CYFS will cart off the kids. This is truly disgraceful and must be fought tooth and nail. Hat's off to Mitch for stepping up. ALL Kiwi SOLOists, please, GET IN BEHIND THIS!!!!!!!!!!


Update on march date

Mitch's picture

Wellington city council will not allow the march to take place on Tuesday 27th, so it has been put back one day to Wednesday 28th.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.