Green MP says section 59 debate getting ugly

Sue Bradford says the emails are not at a level where she needs to involve police. Picture / Martin Sykes.

Green MP Sue Bradford says she has been sent abusive emails over her drive to repeal the defence of reasonable force in child assault cases.

Ms Bradford's controversial Crimes (Abolition of Force as Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows the defence.

Opponents say it will outlaw smacking while supporters say it only aims to stop people dodging conviction for attacks on children with whips, pipes and pieces of wood.

"I've received some very abusive emails in the last few weeks which have made me realise it (the debate) is reaching new heights," Ms Bradford said.

"Some people are so upset by what they see as my proposed intrusion on their rights to physically discipline their children, that they are becoming quite abusive."

Ms Bradford said the emails were not at the level where she would call police "but it's nasty stuff".

"If it went any further I'd involve police or security."

She said the emails made derogatory comments against her personally.

"If people want to influence a member of Parliament it's better if they don't use that kind of language and abuse."

Coalition Section 59

Meanwhile, the debate is intensifying with about 150 groups and individuals coming together as Coalition Section 59. Groups involved included Family Integrity, Society for Promotion of Community Standards and the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Today they announced they were bringing out a Swedish lawyer to make a submission and Parliament's justice and electoral committee confirmed that she would be allowed to make an oral presentation.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson runs a private law firm which deals in guardianship cases in Gothenburg. Mrs Harrold-Claesson said she defended families in Sweden prosecuted under similar legislation there which she said had "ruined families".

Ms Bradford said the formation of the coalition and their bringing in an overseas submitter showed the intensity of the debate.

"It's certainly revealing the deep contradictions in New Zealand society about how we bring up our children and whether we should do that with violence or not. My bill is bringing that out into the open and I think that's a good thing."

Ms Bradford and Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro have both been threatened with defamation cases after commenting on the acquittal of a woman who used a horse whip on her son.

The woman, who has name suppression, was found not guilty because of the statutory defence in section 59 and was an example of what Ms Bradford wanted to eliminate with her bill.

One of the groups in the coalition - Family Integrity - put out a related press release expressing the woman's views.

"It does seem my opponents really are trying to up the pressure," Ms Bradford said.

"I think some of the tactics going on here are going quite low and it doesn't do any credit to my opponents in the debate."

In a coalition press release, Mrs Harrold-Claesson said the law in Sweden meant children lacked discipline and were out of control.

"I've dealt with cases where parents are so frightened of imposing any form of discipline that they have given up all responsibility; they say 'I can't stop my child running around at night, so if something happens to them it's not my fault'."

Mrs Harrold-Claesson formed the Nordic Committee of Human Rights in response to the law there.

- NZPA