Scum
Read about this lovely Hastings Father:
- made his 11 and 13 year old daughters box each other
- belted the loser with a studded belt
- whacked, punched and slapped her
- pulled her hair and split her lip
- the other sister was whacked with a golf club
- previously smacked with a piece of firewood
Oh yeah and after doing all this, he gave them a bible to read. And worse of all the daughters forgive and want him home. I want him in jail. It is natural for daughters to love their father, even abusive violent pricks. I would hope the mother would love them enough though to leave him.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
September 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Perfect candidate for Family First I would have thought.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:02 am
There’s a reason they call them bible bashers.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Of course this was all supposed to end with the anti-smacking bill.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Yes Whale Oil, also have you also noticed that even though murder is illegal people still get murdered?
I blame Helen Clark.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:21 am
It is indeed macabre that he gave them a bible after beating them. The Bible teaches us to show restraint and love towards our children. Although physical punishment is necessary and sanctioned by scripture, this crosses the line and goes into abuse. Perhaps the Fathers time would have been better spent reading the Bible himself. Maybe starting with the passage — “Fathers do not exasperate your children, but bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6: 4).
September 12th, 2007 at 10:37 am
At least there is no section 59 to use as “reasonable force” defence. Just who determined “reasonable” gave room for judicial activism, and hand wringing.
I agree with DPF – this guy’s PR should be revoked (after he serves jail time – assuming convicted), but his family can stay.
No reason is acceptable for family violence. Culture, religion, or ethnicity are not acceptable defences, ever.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Whaley you seem to have missed the point of the “anti-smacking bill”.
It means that he will not get off calling this normal discipline.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:48 am
An incredibly sad story.
Anyone who acts this way should simply not be tolerated in NZ society.
What is really sad is the way the daughters appear to have retracted parts of their testimony, whether out of love or fear.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:00 am
# toms Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Perfect candidate for Family First I would have thought.
# Zippy Gonzales Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 10:02 am
There’s a reason they call them bible bashers.
> FFS, ban?!?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Although physical punishment is necessary …
Really?
If all the details are true, this man is a savage beast and should be put away. Of course, for every example like this that we hear about, there are many more that go unreported.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:14 am
This guy belong in jail.
PP – At least there is no section 59 to use as “reasonable force” defence
This abuse would have failed the ‘reasonable force’ mesure by a country mile. So would 99.999% of other abuse cases.
I guess trapping the remaining 0.001% is good despite it turning hundreds of thousands of good parents into law breakers
September 12th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“sonic” – nice try at obfuscation.
The claims were made that repealing S59 would stop this sort of thing as well as being a step towards reducing the child murder stats. WhaleOil quite legitimately points to this as evidence that those statements were indeed the nonsense that he and others claimed they were at the time.
“Policy Parrot” and “better” please note well that no-one has made any claims of reasonableness about this beating. It always was and always will be unacceptable violence and IMHO a S59 defence would have been rejected. Nice try tho’ at retrospective justification for a piece of unnecessary legislation.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
david You are wasting your breath with the Lefties Yet again they have been proven wrong We told them repeatedly that the legislation would do nothing other than make good parents into potential criiminals but of course they know everything and when they proved wrong sulk like the naughty children that they are.
Command control feaks like they are have theri eyes and ears painted on. Balcks white cause well cause they say so. Losers all.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“The claims were made that repealing S59 would stop this sort of thing”
By whom?
The change in the law removed a defence for “this sort of thing” no-one claimed it would have magic powers.
Oh and speaking of what poeple said about the smacking bill, where is the collapse in civilisation and the gangs of CYFS stormtroopers dragging off inncocent families that we were assured where bound to follow the bills passing?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“By whom?”
Sue Bradford actually.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Got a quote or should we just take your unbiased word for it?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:39 am
How’s this one, Sonic?
“What happens, on the evidence from Europe, is that child abuse deaths drop, and very few parents now feel that physically punishing our children is an acceptable way for adults to treat people who deserve adult love and care, not adult physical and mental assault on their well-being.”
September 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Sonic, you can take my word for it. But I doubt that you will so:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10707.html
September 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
we all know that the repeal of S59 had nothing to do with protecting of children. it was a tick on a leftie ideological score card.
i read that the number of successful defences of abuse citing S59 could be counted on the fingers of one hand. so now we catch a couple more who can’t weasel under the old S59 out while turning hundreds of thousands of good parents into law breakers. stupidity!
the violence towards children will continue to increase, the perpetrators being adults (ie ‘former children’) who were themselves never the recipients of loving parental discipline.
IMHO the more the state usurps the role of the parents the more violence we’ll see toward children and the more lawlessness we’ll see from them. and the fix to that isn’t more state control.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Compare and contrast
“The claims were made that repealing S59 would stop this sort of thing”
Fron pdq’s link.
“Sue Bradford’s Bill as an important step to countering New Zealand’s rates of child abuse and homicide”
Billy’s quote
” child abuse deaths drop
Hard luck guys, but don’t give up, even a stopped clock manages to be rigt twice a day.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“i read that the number of successful defences of abuse citing S59 could be counted on the fingers of one hand”
So those kids don’t matter?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am
sonic, yawn. yes. yawn. and protection isn’t prosecution of the assailant after the fact. you should know that.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Alright, Sonic. Let’s judge Bradford by her own standards. Got any evidence that child abuse deaths have “dropped” since the passing of the Act?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Are you willing to give it more than two months Billy?
Measures like Bradford’s bill are about making a cultural change, it will be a while before we see the effects.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Obviously it is early enough to tell whether the Bill has caused “the collapse in civilisation and the gangs of CYFS stormtroopers dragging off inncocent families” but not early enought to tell whether the Act has made a blind bit of difference to acheiving its stated goal.
Silly me. I must remember to play by Sonic’s rules.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
What happened to innocent until proven guilty DPF?
September 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
The defense will be religious freedom and cultural practice. The argument will be that this is a customary practice and the customary law should prevail.
Numerous witnesses will testify to the custom and defend his right as the master of the household. And all the women will nod their heads from the back of the court room.
The thing that he did wrong was to give them the bible at the end of the teachings. It should have been given before hand so that the girls would have understood that God forgives and that he was carrying out Gods wishes.
There is only one law and that is God’s law. All of the holly books say so.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Just because this person may consoder himself to be a christian, doesn’t make it so. By your actions ye be judged.
Please quote me the passage(s) from the NT where Christ instructs Fathers to beat their Children.
At best this man(?) is a hypocrite, at worst a criminal. By his actions, he is no Christian.
At least the Christian bashers have had another chance to show their bigotry and ignorance today.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Amen, Craig.
This idiot has acted according to his own self-serving misinterpretation of God’s law.
Hardly different from those who deny there being such a thing as God’s law so they can legislate their own and thereby legally exercise their own self-serving ideals/wants/lifestyle by abuse of unborn children.
I don’t condone what this man did at all. He should be punished. But at least he hasn’t killed his children (yet).
~18,000+ other parents do worse every year and get away with it (murder).
“You will know them by their fruits”
September 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“~18,000+ other parents do worse every year and get away with it (murder).”
And the sad thing is that they are all women. The protectors of the children. TUI.
As much as this goon and his like are abhorent, it never ceases to amaze me that the ‘sisterhood’ who scream so loudly about child abuse, cannot see the hypocrisy of their comments.
Isn’t selective morality a wonderful thing.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Sonic, I don’t have a quote but I distinctly recall Bradford saying in an interview…. “Now our babies will be safe” Or words to that effect.
G
September 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Grant I dont think anyone ever seriously argued that the bill would stop all child abuse.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Well Sonic, that’s what she said.
Do you think that she might have been joking with that comment then? Or weren’t we meant to take her seriously? Or did she mean “in the fullness of time perhaps”?
Whatever she meant then, she’s been bloody quiet on that issue since it was passed and that speaks volumes to me.
G
September 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Maybe Sue Bradford can tell the daughters how usefull her Bill was for her. And she can also tell the corpse of Nia Glassie how changing section 59 saved her from child abuse.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Whatever she meant then, she’s been bloody quiet on that issue since it was passed and that speaks volumes to me.”
Can I assume that what you are hearing is something along the lines of;
She didn’t really give a rats arse about child safety, she was only interested in political expediancy? Name in papers, profile raised, move on to the next pointless issue, repeat exercise?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
CraigM and the PerfectMan put themselves as interpreters of what it is to be a true Xtian. The Bible can support such violence very readily – as it can slavery, genoicide. Oh and yes I would deny that there is something such as God’s law – and a good thing too.
For CraigM quickly from the Skeptics Annotated Bible, from Mark7:10 “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:”
or for more visual view of family values see…
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_family/lk14_26.html
September 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“CraigM and the PerfectMan put themselves as interpreters of what it is to be a true Xtian.”
Never. I only state what it means to me.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Dammned straight Craig.
G
September 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
V good pkiwi. Bricktestament, very profound it was. Somethings missing though. Ah yes, the annoying (to swine, they choke on it) but useful idea of context.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Sonic: “I dont think anyone ever seriously argued that the bill would stop all child abuse.”
How much do ya reckon it has stopped, Sonic? To the nearest hundred will do.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Jesus wept…we should stop importing primitive people into NZ. We should tell the UN to get stuffed. Why don’t we?
September 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
It is nice that at least the father takes an interest in their up bringing. He is a fair man too, using historical grievance resolution as his guide.
* made his 11 and 13 year old daughters box each other – clearly a fair way to decide the truth. It is less dramatic than trial by fire and much more humane.
* belted the loser with a studded belt – Corrective action for the inappropriate behavior and taking responsibility for the bad behavior. Studs are fashionable these days and it most likely did not have a standard model. Taking time to go to town and find the right one is time consuming and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied’
* whacked, punched and slapped her – Humane as the studs would have caused undue hardship and having concern for her wellbeing was paramount to good parenting.
* pulled her hair and split her lip – That is what you get when talking back to your father and resisting justice. It happens to the police too, ad leas he did not use pepper spray, or god forbid, Taser!
* the other sister was whacked with a golf club – The handle end only. Lot of flex and no nasty marks left. Much more humane than a studded belt
* previously smacked with a piece of firewood – First warning, she should have know what was coming this time!
The smacking bill is not the issue here, it is the behavior of the father. No doubt the children will have learned a good lesson to teach their children.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Yep, the Dad fell over the edge and, even though it was arrested, it might be further than he thought til he hits the bottom of his fall and he can start crawling back out.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
So, apparently a bill designed to remove the defence of “reasonable force” in cases that are called smacking but really child abuse was ideally meant to:
-physically stop Nia Glassie’s parents from hitting her by sheer force of presence
-somehow compel this nutjob into ceasing to beat his daughters
-reduce child abuse.
Whaleoil, PDQ, Billy and the rest of the ultra-droite gang, perhaps you will forgive Sue B’s bill for not achieving this? After all, it was designed simply to remove a technicality – the defence of “reasonable force,” rather than single-handedly solve all our problems. If you try and claim that’s what Bradford said it would do you’re talking crap.
Anyway, its not like you have to fabricate stuff to attack the left.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
CraigM says:
Isn’t selective morality a wonderful thing.
I guess it’s kind of useful for ignoring the hundreds of children murdered every day in iraq too.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
technicalities don’t stop violence towards children. good parenting does.
so the impact of turning hundreds of thousands of good parents into law breakers hardly seems like a step forward.
still, the S59 repeal gives a tick on the socialist ideology bingo card.
progress!
September 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Firstly
“This idiot has acted according to his own self-serving misinterpretation of God’s law.”
How do you know it’s a misinterpretation?
s59 was about two things:
1. removing an outdated defence that provided a lesser level of protection for our most vulnerable.
2. Signalling that physical violence is not an appropriate way to discipline children – this would, in time (n theory) reduce violence towards children. Anyone who is claiming that this should have happened immediately is either being stupid, or disingenuous.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Precipice – do you feel any guilt at all in using this sad situation to score atheist v theological debating points?
September 13th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Berend: What happened to innocent until proven guilty DPF?
The same thing occured to me. If everything reported is true, then I agree, his actions are deplorable and he should be punished to the full extent of the law.
However, it is not unreasonable to consider that the story might only be partially true. His daughters might have changed their testimony for one simple reason – their original statements were lies brought on by pressure from agencies / people pushing an agenda.
Only a full trial will give us the final answer.
krazykiwi: still, the S59 repeal gives a tick on the socialist ideology bingo card.
Exactly. It’s never about solutions, it’s about seeming to have a solution for them.