Celebrating Christmas: Aretha Franklin “Joy to the World”

Submission re Draft Brothels Bylaws Amendment 2008

Submission to Upper Hutt City Council dated 8 December 2008

Background

The Society strongly opposed the Prostitution Reform Bill when it came before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee following its first reading in parliament in October 2000. It made both written and oral submissions to the committee and was one of the leading opponents of the bill. The Prostitution Reform Act 2005 (PRA) was passed by parliament on 26 June 2003 by a majority of only one vote (there was one abstention).

A number of Society executive members addressed the Upper Hutt City Council when it first embarked on a consultation process that led to the current bylaws governing the operation of brothels in the district. The Society strongly supported Mayor Wayne Guppy JP and his councillors who worked towards restrictions being imposed to limit the operation of brothels within the CBD and residential areas.

The Society, having carefully examined the latest proposals relating to changes to these bylaws affecting brothel placement and operation, strongly opposes some of the proposed changes to the current bylaws. It points out that since they were adopted as law there have been no applications by those wanting brothels in the CBD, as allowed under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), to have these bylaws challenged on the basis that they are unreasonable.

In the Society’s view the Council should accept that it has the strong support of the majority of Upper Hutt residents in retaining its current bylaws.

Many businesses which are excluded from operating within the CBD because of public nuisance factors etc. would love to have a prominent position within this Upper Hutt City CBD zone to promote their trade. The National Co-ordinator of the New Zealand NZ Prostitutes’ Collective (NZPC), Ms Catherine Healy, and her supporters, are determined to have prostitution normalised in this country and treated like any other business by Upper Hutt City Councillors. NZPC demands that territorial authorities like the UHCC create bylaws that allow for brothels to operate within its CBD, even though the public nuisance factors etc associated with such businesses have been recognised in the PRA and authority has been vested in territorial authorities (councils) using the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and LGA, to enact bylaws controlling such operations within their districts.

The PRA itself imposes restrictions under the New Zealand Immigration Act on those coming to New Zealand who intend to invest in or be engaged in prostitution industry (they cannot obtain visas). It is thoroughly consistent with this approach for Councils to exercise their jurisdictional rights to place restrictions on the trade where public nuisance factors, health and safety issues etc can be demonstrated (see below).

It is a violation of the rights of Upper Hutt parents and caregivers to have to re-route their children and young persons when they leave home to attend schools, youth groups and church activities, so as to avoid passing by brothels operating in the CBD and residential areas. The Justice and Electoral select committee was presented with considerable evidence highlighting the public nuisance factors associated with such brothels operating near churches and schools (discarded condoms, criminal activity etc).

Signage

Under s 12 of the PRA, territorial authorities are given powers to regulate signage relating to brothels and sexual services within the CBD and elsewhere in the district.

S 12 Bylaws controlling signage advertising commercial sexual services

(1) A territorial authority may make bylaws for its district that prohibit or regulate signage that is in, or is visible from, a public place, and that advertises commercial sexual services.

(2) Bylaws may be made under this section only if the territorial authority is satisfied that the bylaw is necessary to prevent the public display of signage that—

(a) is likely to cause a nuisance or serious offence to ordinary members of the public using the area; or

(b) is incompatible with the existing character or use of that area.

(3) Bylaws made under this section may prohibit or regulate signage in any terms, including (without limitation) by imposing restrictions on the content, form, or amount of signage on display.

(4) Parts 8 and 9 of the Local Government Act 2002 (which are about, among other things, the enforcement of bylaws and penalties for their breach) apply to a bylaw made under this section as if the bylaw had been made under section 145 of that Act.

This empowerment entrusted to Councils under the PRA recognises the public offence aspect associated with an ‘industry’ that is morally abhorrent to a significant number New Zealanders (56% of the 221 submissions to the select committee on the PR Bill, opposed it).

We repeat … no reasonable case has been presented by the prostitution lobby showing why the current bylaws in Upper Hutt are not justified. Instead of using the legal avenues allowed for under the Local Government Act the prostitution lobby has done nothing.

The Resource Management Act (RMA)

The RMA empowers the Council to make decisions on brothel placements etc. that recognises the public offence aspect associated with an ‘industry’ that is morally abhorrent to a significant number New Zealand.

Prostitution Reform Act 2003 No 28 (as at 03 September 2007), Public Act

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/DLM197864.html

Resource consents in relation to businesses of prostitution

· (1) When considering an application for a resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a land use relating to a business of prostitution, a territorial authority must have regard to whether the business of prostitution—

(a) is likely to cause a nuisance or serious offence to ordinary members of the public using the area in which the land is situated; or

(b) is incompatible with the existing character or use of the area in which the land is situated.

(2) Having considered the matters in subsection (1)(a) and (b) as well as the matters it is required to consider under the Resource Management Act 1991, the territorial authority may, in accordance with sections 104A to 104D of that Act, grant or refuse to grant a resource consent, or, in accordance with section 108 of that Act, impose conditions on any resource consent granted.

(3) Subsection (1) does not limit or affect the operation of the Resource Management Act 1991 in any way, and it may be overridden, with respect to particular areas within a district, by the provisions of a district plan or proposed district plan.

13 Procedure for making bylaws

(1) A bylaw made under section 12 must be made in the same manner in all respects as if it were a bylaw made under the Local Government Act 2002.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a bylaw may be made under section 12 even if, contrary to section 155(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

14 Bylaws regulating location of brothels

Without limiting section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002, a territorial authority may make bylaws for its district under section 146 of that Act for the purpose of regulating the location of brothels.

The PRA recognises that councils have a right to enact bylaws that safeguard the rights of the general public: protecting them from nuisance and maintaining public health and safety. It is an indisputable fact the prostitution is linked to criminal activity including drug dealing, gangs, and many forms of vice. It is exploitative of women and breeds an environment that destroys families and relationships. 

Local Government Act 2002 No 84 (as at 01 November 2008), Public Act146 Specific bylaw-making powers of territorial authorities

145 General bylaw-making power for territorial authorities

A territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for 1 or more of the following purposes:

(a) protecting the public from nuisance:

(b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety:

(c) minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

Without limiting section 145, a territorial authority may make bylaws for its district for the purposes—

(a) of regulating 1 or more of the following:

(i) on-site wastewater disposal systems:

(ii) waste management:

(iii) trade wastes:

(iv) solid wastes:

(v) keeping of animals, bees, and poultry:

(vi) trading in public places:

The Society strongly implores the Upper City Council to take a principled stand against the tiny minority of individuals whose motivation to enhance, normalise and promote their sordid industry – runs counter to the public good. The current bylaws have worked well. Those wanting to operate brothels have had the opportunity to purchase suitable land within the Upper Hutt CBD (eg Alexander Road) that has been for sale for some years, in order to establish brothels and then make application under the RMA to operate in line with current bylaws. They have chosen not to.

By way of analogy …. In the past Councils had hydatid dosing strips confined to areas within the district that took account of public nuisance factors (barking dogs, excrement etc), health concerns (transmitted diseases, faecal contamination. etc.). The prostitution ‘industry’ as we informed the Justice and Electoral select committee some years ago, is like a public cancer. Its operations can be compared to a hydatid-dosing strip in terms of public nuisance etc. It should not be encouraged but in our society as a Main Street activity. Unfortunately it is a necessary evil that we have to tolerate and must control. The PRA recognises that councils have every right to severely curtail prostitution activities just as the Immigration department is likewise empowered and to control its growth. The passage and formulation of the PRA took some account the views of the majority of citizens who opposed it.

Comments on Specific details of the Draft Brothels Bylaw 2008

Clause 7.1 has the effect of negating ALL of clause 4 including Clause 4.1(d) because 7.1 permits “one resident sex worker [male or female] per dwelling in Residential Zones and within 100 metres of the sites listed in Clause 4.1(d)” (The current bylaws allow for an exclusion zone of 200 metres).

These sites where a “brothel” involving “one resident sex worker” is permitted as close as next door under the proposed draft changes are: 

i. Any site zoned Residential; or

ii. A school; or

iii. Kindergarten

iv. A play centre; or

v. A pre- or after-school care centre

vi. A park

vii. Place of worship

viii. Retirement village or rest home

ix. Civic buildings

The vast majority of Upper Hutt residents will not accept a council legally permitting a brothel to operate next door (<100m) to an agency with the responsibility of young children, or catering for the specific needs of children - such as a school, kindergarten, church, childrens’ playground etc. A number of submissions to the Justice and Electoral select committee that considered the Prostitution Reform Bill documented the fact that the environment around a brothel is often rendered a health hazard due to discarded condoms and sexual devices and needles etc. linked to prostitution. The public nuisance created by largely male clients, some in a drunken state, shuffling towards or loitering around the entry and exit door to a brothel, creates a serious public nuisance factor and may in some cases attract criminal elements.  

Clause 7.1 also has the effect of negating Clauses 4.1(a-c) which prevent the establishment of a brothel that is located “within a Residential Zone [a]; or [b] In Main Street or ground floor premises within the CBD; or [c] in any “gang” building.

Many gang headquarters or operating bases featured in the media appear to be private residences that have been modified to accommodate extended family/whanau. Under the proposed change to the Brothels Bylaw found in clause 7.1, it would be possible for a sex worker to be legally permitted to operate from within a “gang” dwelling. Furthermore, hostel owners/managers - medium-term and long-term tenants in residential areas would be entitled to allow one person to operate as an independent sex-worker provided they could establish that the dwelling they resided in was their “residence”. If more than one worked from this base, that person might never be aware that others offering sexual services from within the same establishment.

The Council’s ’strategy’ to make provision in its amended Brothel Bylaws 2008 for more relaxation in the controls over prostitution, appears to be legally flawed. It relies on an artificial and highly questionable distinction it creates between the definition of a “brothel” as defined in the PRA and its own narrower ‘category’ of one person sexual services operation. However, the PRA recognises only one subcategory under the category of brothel - that of the SOB - consisting of up to four independent sex workers. Therefore, under the PRA - a single independent sex worker runs a brothel by definition. She or he, cannot escape his/her legal obligations under the PRA just because they work alone. It appears that the Council has engaged in a semantic manoevre to try and circumvent the law by trying to treat individual independent sex workers differently to those who work in a cluster (SOB) of four or less.

The idea that an exclusion zone of 100 metres (reduced from 200 metres) should apply to a SOB involving 2-4 independent working from one dwelling, in relation to a church, playground or other sites listed in s. 4.1(d), but NOT apply to an one independent sex worker, is bizarre! On what basis can the Council exhibit such a level of unjustified discrimination when both types of brothels are defined in the PRA as “SOBs”. The Council will face endless litigation from disgruntled SOB members involving 2-4 members if it goes ahead with the proposed change to the bylaw that clearly favours the single independent sex worker. Is it reasonable for he Council to show such blatant discrimination against a group (2-4) of independent sex workers?

The Council’s current by-laws are even-handed and the exclusion zone of 200 metres is realistic and perfectly justifiable in a free and democratic society that seeks to preserve and uphold the public good. They should be left alone in this regard. Under the current bylaw brothels are NOT prohibited from the Uper Hutt CBD (as noted Alexander Road is a suitable location for them).

The Society is opposed to any brothel operating in the CBD, whether it is located upstairs or on ground floor level, in cases where its location falls closer than 200 metres from the sites designated under 4.1(d). The Council would be acting against the public good to change this to 100 metres.

The nature of Upper Hutt City in terms of layout and its close proximity to residential areas does not lend itself to an infestation of brothels within the CBD. That’s just tough for those seeking to make money in this sordid industry that exploits women. Any brothel that is allowed within the CBD as a result of any misguided decision of the Council will be subject to massive scrutiny by Upper Hutt city rate-payers and residents. It will not survive and the Society (SPCS) will do all within its power to expose the reveal the true nature of this corrupt and sordid ‘industry’.

The Society fully supports the proposed changes to the bylaw that will allows the Upper Hutt City Council to remove signs in breach of the Bylaw.

Bill Hastings used tax-payer funding to induce 14-year olds to watch rape

Chief Censor Bill Hastings, who receives a tax-payer funded salary package of between between $210,000 and $220,000, used tax-payers money to induce a number of children as young as 14 years of age, to watch films featuring rape and graphic violence, all in the name of research study. He and Dominic Sheehan, chief executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, commissioned market researcher Colmar Brunton to assess the perceptions of 100 individuals of the harm from watching 13 violent clips from films, DVDs etc. Children were paid $60 each for participating. (Dominion Post 4/12/08). It is a serious offence under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 for any person to screen a restricted publication to any underage person.

Mother backs Bill Hastings paying her 14-year old son to watch rape

Mother backs TV Research Dominion Post 6/11/08 by Greer McDonald

The mother of a 14-year old who viewed footage of rape and domestic violence for research has defended the study and says children see worse on news broadcasts.

Dawn Bunker, of Wanganui, said she gave consent for her son to take part in the research and believed he didn’t see anything that wasn’t age-appropriate”.

“I feel it was well worthwhile and done professionally, and at no time felt he could not cope with what he was shown. As he himself put it - ‘You see worse on the TV news, Mum.’”

Mrs Bunker was offended by comments from Bob McCoskrie, of lobby group Family First, who said this week that the fact that parents had consented to their children taking part “says something about the parents”.

Mrs Bunker, a mother of three, said parents had to be censors in their own homes. “Some of the things you see on the news, I’ve kicked my kids out of the room - I’m censoring my children myself, I know what they can handle.”

She said chief censor Bill Hastings was doing a good job.

However, a community lobby group has called for he resignations of Mr Hastings and Dominic Sheehan, chief executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, for whose agencies the research was conducted.

John Mills, president of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, said Mr Hastings showed appalling judgment. “the society is outraged Mr Hastings has defended his breaking of the law by claiming that, because the younger participants gained parental permission before they they took part in the research, then that was okay.”

Society calls for Chief Censor and CEO of BSA to be replaced

Media Release 5 December 2008

The Society is calling on the new government to dismiss Chief Censor, Bill Hastings and the Chief Executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), Dominic Sheehan, for their role in commissioning a market researcher, Colmar Brunton, to pay “children as young as 14 [to be] subjected to footage of rape, sadism and domestic violence as part of research directed by [these] two broadcasting watchdogs”, as reported in the Dominion Post (4/12/08).  Hastings in a feeble and misguided attempt to justify his appalling judgment, when confronted by the Dominion Post, admitted that the teens had indeed viewed attempted rape and graphic violence, but that much of it “went over their head” as they practiced “a type of self-censor”.

Society President John Mills responds “Yeah right Bill!” and asks: So if children are so skilled at self-censorship and are so oblivious of objectionable content and so unaffected by it, then why are you paid from the public purse over $220,000 per year to censor such material and demand that no adult allow it to be screened to kids, when these same kids can self-censor effectively - so you claim? 

In a self-congratulatory farcical ‘analysis’, Hastings told the Dominion Post that he believed the research on child viewing of rape etc. had proved that parents paid attention to film classifications and were “trusting us [the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the BSA] to make a sound call.”

Society President John Mills responds again “Yeah right Bill!” and asks: How can it be a “sound call” for the Chief Censor and CEO of the BSA to offer monetary inducements to children as young as 14 and their parents, in order to get the former to watch rape and graphic violence content and thereby break the law? (The kids were paid $60 to watch material and have their attitudes to it assessed, when screening it to them is illegal). Furthermore, most parents who care about their children would never put them within an arm’s reach of a censor who subjects them to such objectionable content under the pretence of research.

Those under 18 were shown scenes of attempted rape, graphic assaults and domestic violence in the movies Sin City (R18) and 8 Mile (R13), as well as television show Heroes. Violent scenes from episodes of R16-rated Mafia Show “The Sopranos”, the Adults Only TV Programme “Crime Scene Investigation” and the R18 Brad Pitt film “Fight Club” were also shown to the 14 year olds.

The Society is outraged that Mr Hastings has defended his breaking of the law by claiming that because “the younger participants gained parental permission before they took part in the research, then that was OK. However, he is duty-bound to uphold the law - the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 - that defines it to be an offence to show any portion of a restricted publication to an underage person.

The Ministers of Internal Affairs and Broadcasting should insist that the warrants to hold statutory office be immediately withdrawn from Bill Hastings and Dominic Sheehan and they be replaced with persons who uphold the highest standards of integrity in their respective roles as censorship watchdogs.

Reference:

Dominion Post Report

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4781424a1860.html

Deception from pro-abortion campaigners

Deception the name of the game for pro-abortion campaigners and their motley array of ideological bedfellows

Viewpoint: by Barbara Faithfull

Bitter brickbats are regularly hurled against those who oppose abortion, the so-called “pro-lifers”. For example the histrionic rant from Chris Trotter, with his monstrous likening of them to the Taleban. (”N.Z’s Taleban on the March” Dom/Post 13th June 2008). Also  there was  his bogus and devious implication that with the 1978 abortion law reform “the women of N.Z.” finally  won the “right” to a safe legal abortion - as if all N.Z. women had sought this and fought for it - far from it!

Admittedly, I for one had signed the 1977 Repeal petition, a decision I later regretted as I became more aware of the mammoth ideologically-driven game of deception which was driving this issue, and which continues to do so to this day.

So today in 2008 the N.Z. public is still being denied the grim facts about it. People such as Chris Trotter, and other pro-abortion activists who cling to that weaselly euphemism “pro-choice”, can hardly be accused of ignorance in such matters; they are far too deeply involved for that.

Yet they avoid such facts like the plague and continue to lure women – many very, very young – into making the pro-abortion fight their fight. Such campaigners disguise the fact that it is all part of an agenda for radical social change determined by a bunch of ideologues many decades ago on the other side of the world : to serve the nefarious ends of the shadowy international Secular Humanist movement for revolutionary social and political change by peaceful means.

Ideologically-driven, then, it is atheistic by nature and Socialist to the core. Also, necessarily then, anti-capitalist, anti all traditional morality and all legitimate authority : that of God, the Church, parental (all corporal punishment etc.), male family authority, school, police - hence, among numerous Humanist front groups are found Councils for Civil Liberties, which forever seem to be critical of the Police.

In Great Britain the Humanists drew up their daring agenda, largely to attack God’s laws relating to homosexual acts, abortion, infanticide, divorce (to make it easier), pornography, prostitution, soft drugs, euthanasia, and to remove religion from schools.

Also with a major concern for global population control, so some of these issues would seem to serve that end as well, such as relaxing laws on infanticide, abortion and euthanasia. Indeed they believe that abortion should be freely available to any woman who so desires it, hence the hackneyed cry “A woman’s right to choose”.

Similarly with euthanasia : their promotional leaflet “Euthanasia” (1) :contrary to the constant reassurances from lobbyists that they only seek to have euthanasia legalized in certain extreme situations, such as for terminal illness etc., the Introduction to that leaflet crassly spells out what they really are seeking, opening thus : “This report is based on the concept held by most humanists, that every individual has the right to choose the time of his or her own death.” There again is that slogan “Right to choose”! Certainly it is a basic catch-cry and slogan of these people, at least with the abortion and euthanasia issues.

By campaigning behind various neutral and innocuous-sounding fronts, and with the common tactic of appealing to people’s emotions, as well as with a broadly compliant news media, the plan has been wildly successful around the Western World.

Some other N.Z. Humanist front groups are, or have been, the Abortion Law Reform Association of N.Z. (ALRANZ), Divorce Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct), Homosexual Law Reform Association of N.Z. (now defunct) and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES).Opposition to all references to God and all Christian symbols such as Easter and the Nativity in public life are also Humanist-driven, and with Civil Liberties groups frequently leading the charge, which occurs widely in the U.S.A.

Proof of the Humanist nature of such front groups is also to be found in the fundamental contribution such people have made, and still make, to the forming and running of such groups. Humanist members’ names feature in founding documents and in ongoing business and campaign records, sometimes to the point of being interchangeable.

Example : ALRANZ. Names such as leading Humanists Wayne Facer and the later Ray Carr, and Civil Libertarian Barry Littlewood, all held offices at its first A.G.M. held on 17^th March 1971. (By 1980 Littlewood was also revealed to be legal adviser and a director of the (then) closing Marxist Book Shop in Auckland) (2)

Another example : Voluntary Euthanasia Society : The name of Leo Stack was one of many Humanists named in its founding document dated 16^th May 1979, and by 2008 he is still involved, and prominently, as its spokesman. Also, by 1979 Ray Carr (an ALRANZ founder in 1971) was Secretary of the Auckland Humanist Society and by February 1981 he was President of the VES (3). Etc. These people certainly are very interchangeable.

Further proof of a Humanist basis to such issues comes with the little-publicised awards which are made occasionally to various front people in appreciation of their valued work for the cause. Until recent years these were made by the Humanist Society of N.Z., but it has now merged with the N.Z .Rationalists to become known as the N.Z. Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) and details of such awards are shown in their quarterly journal, ironically titled Open Society, which can be seen in public libraries and also on the web.

Hardly surprising, then, to see that awards have been made to people such as Dr. Zoe During, in 2000, for her championing of abortion and homosexual “rights”.(4) Also, in 2001, to Dr. Philip Nitschke, “for his courageous advocacy of the right to choose death with dignity”, to name but two.

Hardly surprising, either, to see that Dame Barbara Goodman is an Honorary Associate of NZARH and a “Humanist Secular Celebrant”, she having led the Auckland “Repeal” campaign in the late 1970’s as Mayoress of Auckland. (5) but of course with nary a hint of its true, ideologically-driven nature!

In conclusion, then, I see temerity – nay, utter confidence trickery – in Mr. Trotter craftily inveigling the “young, confident women of the 21^st century” to join the pro-abortion cause despite its underlying hotbed of duplicity and their ignorance of this.

Also in his puerile vilifying of its opponents as an “army of fanatical right-wing activists” and likening them to the Taleban. Surely the very reverse must be nearer the mark.

As for the overall duping of the general public on this issue – to say nothing of other related Humanist issues - this must also necessarily include all the sincere and well-intentioned folk who have been induced to support – and probably still support - the pro-abortion cause in ignorance of its true nature.

As I was, when signing that Repeal petition in 1977, they have been denied their fundamental right to make an informed choice. So much for the hypocritical Humanist slogan “right to choose”. Only when it suits the ideologues’ purpose, it seems.

References:-

1. “Euthanasia” produced and distributed by the New South Wales Humanist Society in 1973. Supplied to me by the late Ray Carr of the Auckland Humanist Society about 1980.
2. N.Z.Herald 7^th July 1980 : “Source of Marxist Books dries up on shop’s closure”.
3. Radio Pacific 24^th February 1981, when Ray Carr was guest in his capacity of President of the VES.
4. In a N.Z.Herald feature of 25^th/26^th November 2000, Dr. During was said to have been honoured by NZARH for her “career of tireless and outspoken (sic) support for liberal causes : abortion, homosexual law reform” etc.
5. According to the Open Society, summer 2007, Vol. 80, No. 4

Should sentence for sadomasochist be longer?

NewstalkZB Interview

Podcast link: 26165204.mp3

A Christchurch judge has come under fire over the sentencing in a teenage-girl sadomasochism case. Executive Director at the Society for Promotion of Community Standards David Lane talks to Larry Williams.

Shameful Decision by Judge Kevin Phillips in Bondage/Sadomasochism Dungeon case involving the scarification of teenage girls by Mr "Dragon"

The Society is appalled that a Christchurch District Court Judge has only sentenced Richard Jeffrey Barker, 52, to nine months home detention and reparation payments, for scarring two teenage girls, aged 15 and 17, during bondage and discipline sessions involving “blood play” - staged in a specially built “bondage/sadomasochism” facility in a Linwood house. The girls wore leather bras and knickers and gothic-style dresses at the time of the offences and candles and horror movies were part of the dungeon scene. The judge found that the 17-year-old had taken party pills and nitrous oxide at the house.

On 25 November Barker was convicted by Judge Kevin Phillips of “wounding” both girls “with intent to injure” and was required to pay $5,000 to each of his victims by December 20, 2008. The court was told that the scarring by the use of a scalpel had had a serious impact on both victims and the reparation payments were to be made for the emotional harm caused to the children.  Barker says he met the girls through friends and daughters of friends in Christchurch’s bondage, discipline and sado-masochism scene (BDSM).

In one incident on January 2, 2007, a 15-year-old girl was chained with her arms outstretched while Barker used a scalpel to design a dragon cut into her shoulder.

In another incident on December 20, 2006, a 17-year old teenage girl in a leather corset was chained up while Barker, flogged her with a “cat of many tails” whip. According to the NZ Herald, she was “suspended” standing with her arms outstretched between two loops of rope while Barker cut the first lines of a “corset”, from her waist and up between the girl’s breasts. He then made cuts on the girl’s wrists and showed her how to smear the blood on a large mirror with her arms outstretched to create a “blood angel”, a gothic reflection of the snow angels children make on winter days.

Barker claimed all the scarification was strictly consensual, the practice was merely a “hobby” he engaged in and that he had no sexual contact with the girls. The police laid four charges for sexual indecencies against Barker but the Judge dismissed all of these. However, he did note that there had been offending by Barker for dishonesty in 1985, convictions for drug offences in 1995 and indecency convictions in 1996.

The Press reported that Barker’s “Lindwood house bondage playland” had several “themed rooms”, including a “medical” room with a surgeon’s table and dental chair and a “dungeon” with a rack for tying up people.

The Society is outraged at the failure of Judge Phillips to issue a sentence commensurate with the gravity of Barker’s offending and one that will send a much clearer signal that society will not tolerate or deal leniantly with adults who intentionally injure and wound our precious young persons, or who inflict emotional harm on them and morally corrupt them through any activities involving sexual perversions such as sadomasochism, etc. (It is noteworthy that our censorship laws recognise that children and young people, as well as adults, can suffer serious harm when exposed to publications containing sexual violence and other objectionable content).

In justifyng the sentencing he imposed on Barker, Judge Phillips stated:

“Young people need to be protected not only from themselves but from situations where someone of more maturity can take inappropriate decisions for them.”

The Society finds these PC-weasel words (”inappropriate decisions”) offensive, given the circumstances. It believes Judges have a statutory and moral duty to address the true nature of the crimes committed against young people by those who manipulate young people, wound them with the ntent to injure, and have a history of committing sexual indecencies against children.

The court impact reports relating to the two victims revealed that one girl had been scarred physically, mentally and emotionally and suffered depression, anxiety, paranoia and panic attacks. The other suffered shame and fear and was on anti-psychotic medication.

Christchurch parents with young girls can sleep tight in the knowledge that Barker is not currently living at the house where the sick “bondage/sadomasochism” dungeon - now dismantled - was built. If they loitter in the streets near Barker’s present abode, they can be assured that he will not have exactly the same “playland” fitted out with chains and torture racks used in his recent offences, to lure them into. One hopes he is not busy building a new playland for sadomasochism for consenting adults while on home detention. In nine months time it could well be business as usual except that having learnt an important ‘lesson’ from the wise Judge Phillips - that his female clients will need to be 18 years of age or older and his racks a little longer to accomodate older and longer legged-clients.

One outspoken Member of Parliament for children’s ‘rights’ Green Party MP Sue Bradford would have no problems with this playland arrangement. She has stated:

“Personally, I have no problem with sadomasochism carried out between consenting adults using safe sex practices – what I do have a problem with is a legacy of hidden sexual violence practised on children and young people under a mantle of so-called discipline.”

http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10204.html

The Society would like to know why an MP would choose to publicly condone sadomasochism - a sexual perversion that fosters sexual gratification derived from so-called fantasy/horror violence and why Judge Kevin Phillips has issued such a shameful decision that fails to properly address the gravity of the offences committed by Barker.

It has been reported that Barker intends to appeal against Judge Phillip’s decision.

References:

Linwood house bondage playland

Ian Steward - The Press

Wednesday, 03 September 2008

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4678612a6009.html 

Man who cut girls denies guilt

The Press

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4772632a6009.html

 

 

 

 

Gay Rights Political Platform and its Pyrrhic Victory in attempted ‘Hate Speech’ Put Down

On 15th January 1998 Craig Young, a gay-rights activist, had his news report entitled “Hate Propaganda Victory” published on-line by QNA - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News. He boasted about a “victory” that “marks the culmination of a long-term political strategy” on the part of “lesbian and gay” activists like Wellington gay man Calum Bennachie (formerly known as Calum Sawyers). However, it proved to be a pyrrhic victory - well and truly negated and consigned to the trash can of history.

Why? Because in August 2000 the full bench of the Court of Appeal (five members), effectively overturned (in a unanimous decision) what Young was claiming as a “victory” - a decision of the Film and Literature Board of Review (the Board) that had banned two Christian videos that dealt with the insidious nature of the gay-rights political movement and the tragedy of the growing AIDS world-wide epidemic. That ban by the nine-member Board - now widely recognised by the legal community and the informed general public as a direct attack on free speech - driven by the liberal PC-gay-rights agenda - was put together by former law lecturer Bill Hastings, in his role as Deputy President of the Board (he later became Chief Censor, a position he now holds).

Calum Bennachie, representing an aggrieved gay-rights group Human Rights Action Group (HRAG), had earlier successfully applied to the Board to have the two Christian videos banned. In March 2000, gay activists as well as Mr Hastings, were delighted when the High Court upheld the Board’s banning order, following an unsuccessful appeal to the Court by the videos’ distributor - Hamilton-based Living Word Distributors.

Craig Young. who continues to write for a gay website, wrote in 1998:

“After a substantial period of time and diligent work, a long standing Wellington lesbian and gay community initiate finally paid off in late December 1997, when the Office of Film and Literature Classification [sic] ruled that two US Christian Right homophobic hate videos, “Gay Rights/Special Rights” and AIDS: What You Haven’t Been Told” were objectionable, and therefore should be prohibited.”

Young, got his facts wrong. It was the OFLC that classified both videos R18 in 1997 and then, following an appeal by HRAG against the OFLC decision, made to the Board, they were classified (by the Board) as “objectionable” (i.e. banned) in 1998.

Craig Young continued his boasting in 1998:

“The victory [the Board's banning order] marks the culmination of a long-term political strategy, which began with the passage of the Human Rights Act-inclusive clause into the Films, [Videos and] Publications Act 1993, and followed by a test case before the then-Indecent Publications Tribunal over Paul Cameron’s “Exposing the AIDS Scandal” in 1994. As a consequence of that precedent, the Wellington-based Human Rights Action Group [HRAG] brought a case before the Office of Film and Literature Classification over the aforementioned two US hate videos.

“HRAG hopes to have other US hate propaganda videos, such as the notorious “Gay Agenda” prohibited, following OFLC submissions from community organisations. At this point, a fortnight after the decision, no NZ Christian Right organisation has commented on their most significant defeat to date.”

Two years later……

As the Dominion reported on Thursday 31 August 2000 under the headline “Court quashes ban on anti-homosexual films”…..

“The Court of Appeal has issued a landmark decision defending free expression and the ‘free flow of information and ideas’ from censorship. The court has quashed a High Court ban of two fundamentalist, anti-homosexuality videos, saying the Film and Literature Board of Review and the High Court had misdirected themselves….in law as to the impact of the Bill of Rights in this case. A majority decision, delivered by Court of Appeal president Sir Ivor Richardson, in response to an appeal by Christian organisation Living Word Distributors, refers the issue to the board for reassessment.”

To the chagrin of gay activists who had boasted “victory”, and the biter disappointment of Bill Hastings, the Board of Review reclassified both videos as “unrestricted”. Any child, pre-teen, teen, young person or adult can now watch the videos and learn of the real agenda behind the extremist gay activist movement as it has presented itself in North America.

References: http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Reports_on_Court.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0509/S00077.htm

France’s nudist [fundamentalist] mullahs ‘at war with swingers’

The French police are currently probing one of Europe’s most famous nudist colonies for fires blamed on naturist “hardliners” that have destroyed three nightclubs for ’swingers’ at the normally peaceful Cap d’Agde - a mecca for nudists in the south of France. “Fundamentalist” hard-line naturists are suspected of harbouring a grudge against the eschangistes, or swingers, who are drawn to the town by the promise of free sex. A so-called boite eschangiste, or wife swapping club, called Glamour, where couples engage in group sex, was the first to be razed in April. The next to be torched was another orgy venue, Palme Re, followed by the Tantra club and Zen, its neighbouring bar.

The nudist colony has had a crime rate dominated by cases of sexual exhibitionism which has required the local gendarmerie (police) to deal with complaints leading to people being charged and convicted for lewd and improper behaviour. Naturists who believe that nudity is a healthy choice of lifestyle and nothing to do with sex, have clashed with the eschangistes, who are attracted to nudist camps by the prospect of multiple sexual partners.

Some in Cap d’Adge attribute the fires to fundamentalist “mullahs of chaste nudity”, as one magazine called them, who have often harangued holidaymakers venturing onto nudist beaches in bathing costumes. The intolerance of some naturists towards costume wearing holiday makers and those who believe in sexual permissive lifestyle, has shocked the community.

SPCS President John Mills says:

“The Kapiti Coast District Council, which has been harangued by fundamentalist so-called “naturists” demanding by-laws be created to establish their ‘rights’ to go nude on public beaches, should take note of the French d’Agde nudist colony disaster. The proliferation of offensive sexual exhibitionism, plethora of sexually transmitted diseases, problems with marrriages and relationship breakdown, pernicious sex crimes and public unrest, can all be traced in part to the negative impact of public nudity and gratuitous displays of lewd behaviour. Those wanting to live the nude lifestyle should join private clubs where they can ‘police’ themselves without inflicting costs on our tax-payer funded police force whose hard-working members have better things to do than chasing up exhibitionists on beaches who commit lewd acts and indulge in indecent exposure”.   

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5213341.ece

New Christian MP Jonathan Young Upsets Homosexual Lobby

Viewpoint: By Barbara Faithfull

On 17^th October 2008, prior to the November 8^th 2008 General Elections, homosexual Labour list M.P. and highly qualified lawyer Charles Chauvel wrote an angry rant on GayNZ.co.nz. His target : the National candidate for New Plymouth Jonathan Young, 50, who on the night won by the very slim majority of 314 votes [beating sitting Labour MP Harry Dynhoven]. By November 21^st, with the counting of special votes completed, Young was confirmed as the successful M.P., but with a razor thin majority of only 100 votes (Stuff.co.nz).

For eighteen years prior to 2008 Young was Senior Minister of the CityChurch Waitakere, West Auckland, but this year moved back to his Taranaki birthplace. He is one of nine children of the late Venn Young, a former National cabinet minister who, in the 1970’s, championed homosexual law change.

Young is being targeted for doing the unforgivable : expressing the politically incorrect view that homosexuality is a choice and is not normal! The Taranaki Daily News of October 11^th had quoted Young thus:-

“One of my associates was an ex-lesbian. She discovered through her own journey and talking to others that a lot of things happened to her in her childhood that affected her deeply and caused her to become homosexual. One of the things I do strongly object to in terms of the people who have made this choice is the presentation of it as a normal alternative.”

As already mentioned, such rare frankness on this issue predictably has drawn frenzied and illogical responses from some quarters according to GayNZ.com on 14^th October :-

One Lesley Belcham : “I strongly object to mythmongers like Jonathan Young. What is normal? Is being left handed normal? Is orange hair normal? Yes, they are!” etc….

Charles Chauvel : “There was once a liberal tradition in the National Party. Jonathan Young helps show how withered and lifeless it has become. So does John Key’s failure to immediately repudiate Jonathan Young’s views. Shame on him!”

Craig Young (presumably no relation to Jonathan) a long-standing and quite fanatical member of the homosexual lobby, and obsessed with labelling “the enemy” as “fundamentalists”. Also on GayNZ.com on 17^th October last he poured forth in an item headed “Jonathan Young and Teen Challenge : A deeper Probe” There he notes that Jonathan Young is a former leader of Teen Challenge, “ a fundamentalist youth and alcohol treatment facility in his former role as minister at City Church Waitakere. He is attracting controversy for his claims that lesbians and gay men can be cured.” So begins his wild and simplistic 2-page rant which can be seen on GayNZ.com.

Several afterthoughts.

1.In the November 15^th 2008 N.Z.Herald letters to the editor is one recounting a noticeably pro-homosexual attitude expressed by our incoming National Prime Minister John Key a year ago at the Auckland “Big Gay Out” event held annually at Point Chevalier. Matthew Moran of Herne Bay happily points out that “I shook hands with John Key. Interesting too were the words he spoke in support of the gay community and of gay adoption” etc.

Clearly there is a dire need for new Prime Minister John Key to be educated about the decades-old, covert plan by the international homosexual movement to pursue its anti-God, anti-social agenda, as set out in the 1972 Gay Rights Platform.

2. In crying “Shame!” (as above) Charles Chauvel hypocritically seems bent upon claiming the moral high ground, even as he colludes in all the shifty and culturally subversive goings-on known benignly as “gay rights, “safety in schools” etc.

3. I believe that Jonathan Young needs all the support and encouragement he can get in these difficult PC times as he courageously treads the risky path of non-conformity with the PC brigade.

Barbara Faithfull,

North Shore City

No trial in Christian right to smack case

By SALLY KIDSON - The Nelson Mail | Friday, 14 November 2008

The trial of a former Nelson man fighting for what he says is his right as a Christian to hit his son will not go ahead, after the Crown decided to offer no evidence in the case.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4761240a11.html

Rowan James Flynn, 53, was scheduled to stand trial on five charges of assaulting his 12-year-old son, when he was aged 11, and one charge of assaulting a female.

Mr Flynn, who now lives in Christchurch, also faced two charges of leaving a child under 14 without reasonable supervision.

The father of four told the Nelson Mail last year he had been charged after his son called the police.

He had hit his son about five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a “tiny issue” that blew up. He said he also “clipped” his son around the face about a week after the incident with the wooden spoon. He told the Nelson Mail he believed his actions were justified by the Bible.

Nelson District Court Judge Tony Zohrab discharged Mr Flynn on Thursday after the Crown offered no evidence on the assault charges. The two charges of leaving a child under 14 without reasonable supervision were withdrawn Thursday morning. Crown prosecutor Janine Bonifant said the Crown had decided not to offer any evidence in the case, which was different from saying it did not believe the alleged offences had taken place.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk said the dismissal of the charges had nothing to do with the merits of the case, the quality of evidence or the amendment to Section 59 defence.

“This was a clear case where the interests of the child had to take precedence, and the defendant in the Nelson case is well aware of those reasons, which are behind the Crown’s decision not to offer any evidence,” Mr McGurk said. “I am absolutely confident that the actions of my officers investigating the allegations against the father were thoroughly professional and the decision to prosecute was correct and was in the public interest.”

Mr Flynn told the Nelson Mail he hadn’t been told why the case wasn’t being heard, but he had been looking forward to going to trial.

Mr Flynn said he thought the case had been dropped because the Crown was worried it would be exposed for “what they had done, because the whole lot was lies”.

“This is consistent with all other polls done throughout the year, including research commissioned by Family First - that there is an 80 per cent opposition to the anti-smacking law because most people know that smacking for the purpose of correction is not child abuse.”3

- with NZPA

New Green MP Kevin Hague likely to promote anti-family policies says Director of Family Life NZ

November 10, 2008 by Brendan Malone Director Family Life NZ

Well we have a new government, but while all the attention has been focusing on John Key and the National party, the latest member of the Green party to make it into parliament has received very little attention.

His name is Kevin Hague, and he will be a concern for those of us who care about marriage and family issues in NZ.

Firstly, he is the former head of the NZ AIDS Foundation - a gay lobby group that has been responsible for some of the most immoral and obscene “safe” sex campaigns in NZ (one recent campaign even involved a website which gave tips on “cruising” - the practice of meeting strangers in public places for anonymous homosexual sex).

Secondly, in a recent interview with GAYNZ.com he stated that he considers the following issues a priority for his time in parliament…

1. Gay adoption
2. Full gay marriage
3. “Resourcing” for gay youth groups
4. Removing the right of NZ schools to say no to gay activist groups like Rainbow Youth

Remember the Greens already have Metiria Turei back again - the Green MP who has a bill to legalise gay adoption in NZ, and who lists “anarchist activism” as one of the aspects of her life experience over the last 20 years.

Make no mistake about it, Hague is an MP who is almost certainly going to be of concern to those of us who care about marriage and family issues in this country.

http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/new-green-mp-likely-to-promote-very-worrying-policies/

Kapiti bares its defiance on nudity

Dominion Post 5 November 2008

Overwhelming opposition to nudity on Kapiti Coast beaches has sparked a flood of submissions on the district council’s draft beach bylaw. Bernie Goedhart, Kapiti Coast District Council’s group manager, said the council had received 369 written submissions. Those included about 900 signatures on three petitions, most of which opposed nudity on the district’s beaches. About 22 submissions out of 200 sorted by staff related to horses, motorbikes and fires on beaches, while the remainder were related to nudity. One petition - with 13 signatures - supported nudity.

The matter sparked fierce debate after councillors decided not to include any reference to naked sunbathers in its draft bylaw. “The councillors agreed that the bylaw was not the way to control nudity on local beaches - if nudists’ behaviour was deemed offensive it would be dealt with by police,” Mr Goedhart said. “Trying to address the concerns of the community will prove a challenge for councillors.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4750127a11.html

TV programmes featuring sexual promiscuity and sexualised content have corrupting influence on teenagers and children.

Yesterday researchers at the Rand Institute organisation in Chicago had the results of their three-year study on the TV viewing habits of teenagers published in the November issue of Pediatrics. It is the first study to establish a link between teenage exposure to TV programmes featuring sexual promiscuity and highly sexualised content, with high rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States. It involved 2003 12- to 17-year-old US girls and boys questioned about their TV viewing habits in 2001. Teens were re-interviewed twice, the last time in 2004, and asked about pregnancy. Among girls, 58 became pregnant during the follow-up, and among boys, 33 said they had got a girl pregnant. It also showed a link between the exposure of children to violent video games and the adoption by these viewers of aggressive behaviour.

Today the NZ Herald reproduces an Associated Press story on these findings:

Sex in the City - and among teens

4:00AM Tuesday November 04, 2008

Television shows such as Sex and the City have been linked to increased pregnancy in teenagers.

CHICAGO - Ground-breaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behaviour compared with those who have tamer viewing tastes.

The study is the first to link those viewing habits with teen pregnancy, said lead author Anita Chandra, a Rand behavioural scientist. Teens who watched the raciest shows were twice as likely to become pregnant over the next three years as those who watched few such programmes.

Shows that highlight only the positive aspects of sexual behaviour without the risks can lead teens to have unprotected sex “before they’re ready to make responsible and informed decisions”, Dr Chandra said.

The study was released yesterday in the November issue of Pediatrics. It involved 2003 12- to 17-year-old US girls and boys questioned about their TV viewing habits in 2001. Teens were re-interviewed twice, the last time in 2004, and asked about pregnancy. Among girls, 58 became pregnant during the follow-up, and among boys, 33 said they had got a girl pregnant.

For more see:

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/section/1501119/story.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10540914&ref=rss

Society’s Submission to Kapiti Coast District Council on its Draft Beach Bylaw 2008: Clothes optional areas and the promotion of public nudity

1. Section 17 of the Bylaw: “Defined Areas”

The Society submits that Section 17 (“Defined Areas”) of the Draft Beach Bylaw – 2008 - as it stands - should be deleted in its entirety. We challenge the Council to provide to the public any reasoned justification for such a provision based on the four specific examples given. Furthermore, we contend that the Council has no authority whatsoever to claim such a wide discretion over the beach – “without limitation” (17.1). The provision is ultra vires – it is beyond the powers of the Council to lay claim to such a wide discretion, one that could potentially lead to the imposition of severe limitations on the freedom of movement and behaviour of persons or classes of persons on Kapiti Coast beaches. It raises serious issues under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) if the Council approves any by-law enabling it to place unreasonable restrictions over certain “defined areas” of the beach, especially a provision that allows for no public consultations and/or submissions prior to a Council making resolutions as to such restrictions. Under s. 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02), the Council must consider whether a clause raises implications under the NZBORA.

In our view, the four examples of “defined areas” in s. 17 cannot possibly provide justification for this addition, when the Council already has powers under existing legislation to place restrictions on public access to such areas. For example, section 146 b(vi) of the LGA deals with “land under the control of the territorial authority”. This means all beach area under its control1 under the LGA 02. It is empowered with the task “of managing, regulating against, or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures, or infrastructure … land under [its] control [as] the territorial authority.” This includes safeguarding sand-dune restoration.

Section 145 of the LGA 02, allows the Council to make bylaws for the following purposes: protecting the public from nuisance, protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety, or minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public areas.

The Society challenges the Council to identify what safety problem(s) is being dealt with by the Section 17 examples given. We contend that there are none that cannot be dealt with adequately under existing legislation. What problems have been identified by the Council and documented by way of formal public complaints that would necessitate the imposition of a new by-law s 17 that would further erode public freedoms? Under section 155 of the LGA, the Council is required to be able to identify a perceived problem that can be addressed by a bylaw.

As currently worded, section 17 allows the Council to impose certain restrictions, limitations or conditions on certain “defined areas” by means of its own resolution, without requiring public consultation involving submissions etc. While it is true that the Council can impose a restriction or prohibition by Council resolution alone, without public input, it cannot do so if the by-law is so worded that to act upon it would be ultra vires. Section 17 is such a bylaw. The Bylaws Act 1910 contains a provision that would make any bylaw invalid if the latter provides the Council with so great a discretion as to be unreasonable. Section 17 – if tested in Court – would be declared invalid for this reason.

One can only assume that Council, when agreeing to accept Section 17 into its proposed Beach Bylaw, had other examples of “defined areas” beyond the four listed in mind. It is noteworthy that none of four given have as their focus, concerns over the effects of activities/behaviour of humans on others. If the Council still maintains that Section 17 should stand, despite considering matters raised above; but only moves to delete the four examples given, to be replaced with ones involving human behaviour; – a serious problem still remains.

Let us consider the defining of areas based on a human activity – such as nude swimming and nude beach activity (sunbathing, volley ball, BBQs etc). The Council would be acting ulta vires to define an area based on the so-called “clothes optional criteria. There are serious Bill of Rights issues to consider here. By defining an area based on such criteria sends two clear messages: [1] that to engage in such activity on the beach elsewhere (outside the defined zones) is contrary to the law and [2] to engage in nudity within the defined area is lawful. Both implications are problematic and overlook the force of Section 27 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, which states:

• 27 Indecent Exposure:

• (1) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in or within view of any public place, intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals.
• (2) It is a defence in a prosecution under this section if the defendant proves that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would not be observed.

There is only one defence provided in law to a charge of “indecent exposure” and the onus is on the defendant to prove his/her case (s. 27[2]). Any defence that seeks to rely on Council signage stating: “clothes optional,” or “beware of exposure to nudists,” or “enter nude are at your own risk,” or “close your eyes while crossing between A & B,” or “No prudes allowed in Nude Zone” etc; will be ruled out of order in Courts. Police will be required to consider laying charges when any person acting in a lewd or offensive manner within a so-called nudist area, causes offence to any member of the public, following genuine complains. The Council may well be drawn into costly litigation if such cases proceed to the Courts as in the two Ceramalus cases (see below).

2. Minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public areas.

Under S. 145 of the LGA the Council is within its rights to place notices on any beach instructing the public as to what is considered “offensive behaviour in public places” and this could relate to nudity. However, to outright ban such behaviour, could be argued as over-reaching its jurisdiction given that (1) other laws cover such matters (e.g. ss. 4 and 27 of SOA) and (2) under the LGA 02 the Council would have to establish that a perceived problem existed to warrant such restrictions.

In the light of the fact that there are a huge variety of ethnic and cultural communities represented on the Kapiti Coast it behoves the Council to take into consideration the values, beliefs and customs etc. of these communities when addressing “perceived problems” by means of signage. People do need to be reminded that common courtesy, respect and consideration of others, should and must undergird all behaviour, particularly in a public place such as a beach. Signs warning potential offenders of the consequences of engaging in “indecent exposure” and “lewd” or “offensive behaviour” should not be necessary. However, if the public document to councillors by way of complaints – documenting the facts – significant numbers of offences of this kind in certain areas – the erection of appropriate warning signs should be an option the Council looks at seriously, as a means of addressing the problems raised.

The Society believes that the Council has not yet established that there is a “perceived problem” (relating to public nudity) as is required under the LGA 02; that would justify the erection of warning signs as outlined involving “banned behaviour”. Nor does it believe that there is a “perceived problem” identified by those advocating “no clothes zones”, that could possibly justify the creation of such areas for the enjoyment and cultivation of a small band of nudists, most of whom can go and join a private nudist club.

The Society believes that signage should be placed on all major beaches at the significant entry/access points, notifying the public of their responsibilities in terms of behaviour in general terms. The expectation of the majority of Kapiti Coast ratepayers is that they show consideration to others. Under s. 5.4, of the proposed draft by-law, the Council has seen fit to inform surfcasters “to take reasonable steps to ensure” they avoid creating “a safety hazard to other beach users”. Perhaps determined nudists need to be reminded by Council to keep their hazardous tackle boxes covered to avoid causing hazards!

The deliberate choice and action of some members of the public to engage in activities involving “indecent exposure” is recognised and defined in law as causing potential offence to others. If members of the public need to be reminded in s. 5.2 of the proposed Beach Bylaw not to “loiter in or around dressing shed or toilet”; it should not come as a surprise to Council that they may need to erect signage to remind people not engage in “indecent exposure”. A man was recently ordered off a very popular section of the Paraparaumu Beach recently, because he chose to expose himself fully naked (including his genitals) in front of a mother and her children. He told police that he thought that it was now legal to go nude on any of the Kapiti Coast beaches. One report suggested that Kapiti Coast councillors had been responsible for conveying this massage to him.

The Council would be acting ultra vires if it were to seek to regulate nudity in the beach environment. It cannot declare it lawful or acceptable in any area under its jurisdiction. It can remind the public of relevant sections of the SOA 1981 and commend the principles of respect, etc. to the public The Council must consider whether any action it takes by way of erecting signage, is a proportionate and rational response to the identified problem.

3. Beach Nudity and the Ceramalus cases.

The Society believes that the Council may have been misled into thinking that the case involving the acquittal of Mr Ceramalus by the High Court (Ceramalus v Police AP 76/91) for offensive behaviour, brought by the police under s. 4(1)(a) of the SOA 1981; sets a precedent in case law - establishing that merely being naked on a beach is not offensive. However, it is an over-simplification of the case law to draw this conclusion from what we can refer to as Ceramalus 1.

The police’s initial charge against the defendant of “indecent exposure” (under s. 27 of the SOA) was dropped and only a charge under s. 4(1)(a) of the Act were pursued in the District Court. Despite being convicted of the latter offence - “offensive behaviour” - no penalty was imposed on the defendant. And yet Ceramalus appealed the conviction to the High Court and won. The latter ruling does not say anything about the way the law deals with a charge laid under s. 27(1) – one of “indecent exposure”. The High Court Judge took the view that the threshold level of offence had not been reached to warrant a conviction for “offensive behaviour” – the behaviour he wrote – “must be such as is calculated to wound the feelings, arouse anger or resentment or disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person”.

This case cannot be used as an authority for the assertion that nudity on beaches will never amount to offensive or disorderly behaviour in breach of s. 4(1)(a) of the SOA 1981. Judge Tompkins emphasised that in judging the behaviour in terms of “matter of degree”, factors such as relevant time, place and circumstances, had to be taken into account.

The second Ceramalus case2 in 1995 established that walking down a suburban street naked, openly in view of children, does constitute disorderly conduct behaviour. The High Court established that the context of the behaviour was of critical importance. In his decision Justice Morris indicated that he might have decided Ceramalus 1 differently. Ceramalus unsuccessfully sought to appeal his case further to the Court of Appeal.

The Society wants the Council to disregard the erroneous proposition put to it in a legal opinion presented by the Free Beach Movement (Inc.) – a nudist lobby group – that Ceramalus 1 establishes in case law that going nude on a New Zealand beach does not constitute offensive behaviour. The Council should avail itself of the full facts relating to all the Ceramalus cases and study section 27 of the SOA 1981.

4. The Bill of Rights Act

Here again the Society believes that the Council may have been misled by those promoting so-called freedom of expression and who see the promotion of nudity and optional clothing zones as a liberating public activity that promotes freedom of expression. Section 19 of the BOR states:

19. Freedom from discrimination:

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
• (2) Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.

Those opposing any Council by-law that might spell out that advocating nude beaches on the basis that

However, “freedom of expression” is not the overriding and only principle to consider here. Sections 5 & 6 of the BOR must be taken into account as well

5. Justified limitations.

• Subject to section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

6. Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred.

• Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.

The Society will elaborate on these matters in its oral submission to Council.

_____________

Note: The Society wishes to make an oral submission to Council on this matter.

For the Society for Promotion of Community Standards

On behalf of Society Members who reside on the Kapiti Coast.

---

1 Area of beach between Mean High Water Springs and Mean Low-Water Springs.

2 Ceramalus v Police 1991 CRNZ 678

To view Beach Bylaw 2008 see:

http://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz:80/Home/Consultation.htm

Suicide toll surpasses road deaths - Approval by Board of pro-suicide book slammed by Society.

In the light of the release of new coroners’ figures on suicide rates, the Society is slamming a unanimous decision by the 8-member Film and Literature Board of Review to support the public availability of a sick book that provides step-by-step methods of how to commit suicide and assist others to do so. The book - The Peaceful Pill Handbook - now classified R18 by the Board, is authored by an elderly Australian zealot, obsessed with seeking notoriety for himself - via his his culture of death propaganda message and his exploitation of weak and vulnerable people who he convinces to fly to Mexico to obtain an illegal suicide drug he promotes in his book and at his fee-paying seminars.

The Dominion Post (25-26/10/08) reports:

“More people [in New Zealand] took their own lives than died in road crashes in the past year, new coroners’ figures show. In the year to the end of June, 511 suicides were reported to coroners - 1.4 self-inflicted deaths a day…. Chief coroner Judge Neil MacLean said … Raw data about suicides was ‘rather shocking’… [As a comparison] There were 422 road deaths last year.” (See link to full report below).

The Society wants New Zealanders to know the names of the Board members who, by their decision, have released a publication into circulation that advocates for and promotes suicide. The members involved in the decision were: Claudia Elliott (President), Dr Jo Baddeley (Deputy President), Judy Callingham, Judith Fyfe, Dr Ian Lambie, Mark Andersen, Andrea Haines, and Ani Waaka (All were recommended for appointment by the Labour-led government Minister of Internal Affairs). The Board upheld the R18 classification issued earlier by the Chief Censor’s Office.

Reference:

Dominion Post 25-26 October 2008

Suicide toll surpasses road deaths

by Lane Nichols

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4738796a20475.html

Employment Relations Authority suggestion on role of Chief Censor’s Office is laughable says employer lobby group.

The Society points out that the recent judgment (8 October) by Employment Court Judge Coral Shaw, overturning the July 2007 ruling by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that awarded $9,000 for hurt feelings to an employee, Jessica Wood, for unjust dismissal by her employer for her breach of company policy involving emails; highlights the bizarre nature of that flawed ERA decision. ERA member Dennis Asher who wrote it, was quite wrong to have suggested that an employer has to secure a classification decision from the Chief Censor’s Office confirming that an email is “objectionable”, before dismissing an employee for disseminating offensive and sexually explicit content in breach of company email policy.

Read more

Media Release by Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd

13 October 2008

The General Manager of Arthur D Riley & C