Big News: More irrelevant ‘research’ from the Families Commission
October 1, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Families Commission, Family, Homosexuality
Source: http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-irrelevant-research-from-families.html 27/09/09
Family First has alerted the media – unfortunately embargoed till Friday – about the latest research from the Families Commission. It has labelled a report on gay and lesbian parenting as unnecessary, advocacy research, a complete waste of taxpayer money, and reveals nothing new that isn’t faced by other blended families.
They ‘re right on one thing. It is advocacy research. So who are the two researchers who compiled this report?
One lesbian researches queer theory from Canterbury University, the other has published many journal articles on challenging heteronormativity and is doing a thesis on experiences of lesbians and gay men who create family through assisted reproductive technologies – no doubt this tax-payer funded research has helped with her research towards her PhD, despite the Blues Skies Fund that funded the research noting that grants do “not fund degrees”.
So this is not unbiased research – it is insider advocacy research, conducted by those who say they live lives “outside the norms of heterosexuality” [what's wrong with the word "lesbian"?] with a pre-determined agenda – to normalise gay relationships and to advocate for a change in adoption laws, and laws surrounding how many parents can be on birth certificates. Nothing wrong with that, but some people would not be happy with their taxpayers dollars being spent on this. [For more go to...]
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-irrelevant-research-from-families.html
King John ignores the shrieks at his peril” or What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Nelson Mail Opinion Piece by Chris Salt
September 8, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
In an opinion piece from the Nelson Mail (5 Sept. 2009) entitled – “King John ignores the shrieks at his peril”, Chris Salt, former police inspector and Riwaka tourism operator looks, at the question: What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Chris holds a masters degree in public sector management and takes a keen interest in issues related to social justice and the role of government…… Chris Salt wrote……
After the 1990 referendum when 70 percent of respondents voted for MMP Mike Moore said the people had not spoken they had screamed. What can we say about the anti smacking referendum? The people did not scream, they shrieked! The difference is that Jim Bolger listened but John Key chooses to interpret a shriek as a whimper. According to him and I quote, 1.6 million New Zealanders, “still have some concerns and want a high degree of comfort”. It is not concern or comfort Mr Key should be addressing but all those ‘No’ boxes containing a big tick.
Section 59 “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast” says PM John Key
September 4, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
The Prime Minister acknowledged this morning on Radio Live that the current Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 – the so-called anti-smacking legislation promoted by Green MP Sue Bradford – is “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast”. He made this comment in an interview with Michael Laws on RadioLive at 11:40 AM today Friday, 4 September 2009.
The Rt. Hon. John Key might be very astute on financial matters but he appears to have little idea how the law should work in a true democracy. He will not be Prime Minister forever. Another government might tell the police to ignore his instructions and enforce the law as it is currently written.
A smack or time out for correction should not be a crime
July 28, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Kiwi Party Press Release 28 July 2009
The Referendum about the so called “anti-smacking” law (the name which Sue Bradford herself originally gave to her Bill) is really about how children should be corrected according to former MP & now President of the Kiwi Party Gordon Copeland.
(dis)Honest to God: How Not to Argue about the Smacking Referendum
July 27, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Dr. Glenn Peoples responds to liberal Ian Harris.
Ian Harris tells us (“Honest to God,” Dominion Post, [Dominion Post. Saturday July 11, 2009. Page B5], reproduced at the YesVote website at http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/07/17/the-bibles-harsh-view-rejected/) that we should reject the “harsh views” on child rearing found in the Bible.
Mr Harris, unfortunately, joins many of those who promote the criminalisation of good parents by muddying the waters. He notes, for example, that someone who defends the right to use physical discipline also believes that children (like adults) are sinners. He then announces that since “progressive” Christians (by which he seems to mean those who no longer accept Christian theology) realise that this is based on an antiquated view, we should likewise reject the right to use physical discipline and we should criminalise those who do.
Read the full article here.
BIG NEWS Report: Barnardos asks kids about smacking, and lies about the research”… Why? In order to promote their VoteYes Campaign?
June 28, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
Barnardos have been interviewing New Zealand children by phone to see what they think about getting smacked. The question they asked:
Do you think that adults who are taken to court for hitting a child should be let off if they say they were disciplining the child?”
……. The kids had to push 1 if they should be let off 2 if they think they should not be let off, 3 if they don’t know and 4 to hear the question again. Just over half said they should not be let off. Many probably didn’t understand what ” let off” meant- ……..Nor is it clear whether “adults” included strangers.
They interviewed stressed kids who called the What’s Up hotline, a hotline for kids to talk about anything they wish, including abuse. While the kid was waiting to speak to a real person, they were given an automated message with the above question. That’s a little like asking turkeys on the 15 December whether they are looking forward to Christmas. There was only a 10% valid response rate. Read more
Barnardos drop legal threat re Vote No CIR YouTube Video
June 25, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
A stunning satirical video posted on the YouTube website that lampoons the arrogant, ‘professional’ “we know best” ”YesVote” child ‘experts’, who hate the thought of the majority of NZ parents voting “NO!!” to Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law in the forthcoming CIR, has got up the noses of Barnardos officials. They formally contacted the author and star of the video, a Mr Renton Maclachlan from Porirua, who interviews a fictitious Mr Dennis Morris-Traveler - spokesperson for the Vote Yes lobby group… Barnardos demanded that he immediately remove his offending video from YouTube. They also contacted YouTube directly to get the video removed.
They followed the initial contact with a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action. The Barnardo’s lawyer said to Maclachlan that her clients rights were violated by him purporting to be an employee of Barnardos, to officially speak for it and represent its view. Maclachlan sought legal advice and after an exchange of letters, Barnardos decided to proceed no further.
The YouTube Title and Description for the video are as follows:
NZ Correction Referendum: Vote Yes? No! SATIRE
BEWARE. WARNING. SATIRE. COMEDY. Renton Maclachlan conducts an in-depth, enlightening, and entertaining interview with Dennis Morris-Traveler of Baanaadoze and spokesperson for the Yes Vote campaign…
See at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfrwuBxc5w8
For those with a more serious frame of mind wanting concise information explaining why they should vote “No” (and NOT “Yes”) in the forthcoming Citizen’s Initiated Referendum (CIR) … view Maclachlan’s other videos on YouTube.
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘What it says!’ – your ‘unemotional’ guide to Section 59
‘Renton Maclachlan brings a brief, clear, unemotional, analysis for Kiwis of Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-correction law’. See it for yourself and find out what it means! Be confused no more! And vote ‘NO!’ in the referendum in August!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxiYobjbeO4
The NZ ‘anti-correction law’ – ‘Why correction is needed.’
‘Renton Maclachlan brings a clear and concise, fast paced, in your face yet unemotional, analysis of the worldviews behind both the old and the new Section 59s.’
http://www…youtube.com/watch?v=HsnT8ul2f28)
CIR critic’s forced sex-smacking argument fails
June 24, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Dr Seuss’s guide to John Key on CIR
June 23, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Green MP Sue Bradford’s Attack on Democracy
June 22, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Media Release 19 June
Green MP Sue Bradford is infuriated that both John Key and Phil Goff have told the media that they will not be voting in the forthcoming Citizens’ Initiated Referendum (CIR) dealing with the ‘anti-smacking law’, because, like her, they consider the question being put to the public is silly, ambiguous and renders the CIR exercise pointless and a complete waste of tax-payers’ money. She is incensed that these politicians are not supporting her expensive “Vote Yes” campaign to retain the anti-smacking law she championed and is distressed that their decision not to vote might convince some who intend to support the “Yes” vote, that voting is a complete waste of time.
On the one hand Bradford tells the New Zealand public that the referendum question is so ambiguous and silly that it renders the exercise pointless and on the other hand she craves, indeed pleads with them, to vote “Yes” in support of the legislation she championed. This is blatant hypocrisy. The tragedy is that she doesn’t comprehend that it is. She is even prepared to publicly criticise two gentlemen – Key and Goff – with years of collective experience in managing and disciplining their own children – for exercising their right not to vote in the CIR.
The Society commends Mr Key and Mr Goff for taking this incredibly bold and brave stand not to vote as it will assure all New Zealanders that politicians like them really do want to hear the genuine opinions of ordinary New Zealanders on the subject, rather than their own, possibly self-serving ones. This ever-so gracious and noble move on their part to sacrifice their own privilege to exercise a democratic right in deference to that of the general public, is so very laudable (we’re being facetious if you haven’t noticed!). It is reminiscent of the bold and brave actions of great field commanders in time of war – such as Hannibal – who chose to forgo the privileges of rank to eat the maggot-infested food dished out to ordinary soldiers and sleep next to the field latrines with his men.
New Zealanders must grasp that Super Commanders Key and Goff are genuinely and intensely interested in the views of the common folk who sacrifice their lives on a daily basis for the children of this land. That’s why they have not sought to discredit an instrument of democracy – the CIR – just days before it is to be unfurled. It would be unconscionable for such men of such superlative integrity to pour scorn on their country’s flag prior to it being unfurled or after it is flying. That’s why, they have said nothing whatsoever that would denigrate, discredit or demean or call into question an instrument of democracy – the CIR – (one they were actually instrumental in setting up) …. Yeah right!
Anti-Smacking Law ‘Has Made No Difference’ – Law Society
May 21, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
Media Release Family First – 21 May 2009
Family First NZ says that the Law Society has admitted that the anti-smacking law has made no difference to NZ’s unacceptable rate of child abuse. Chair of the Family Law Section of the Law Society Paul Maskell was asked on a radio interview this week whether the law has done anything to reduce child abuse from the perspective of the legal profession. He responded ‘we haven’t noticed any change at all…The change in law really has made no difference’. He agreed that abusers don’t even know what the law is and don’t really care. Read more
Did Green MP Sue Bradford con the gullible into believing that her ‘anti-smacking’ legislation was needed to end Child Abuse?
May 19, 2009 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Crime, Moral Values, Violence
A Growing list of child homicides in New Zealand suggests that the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 has had no positive impact whatsoever on reducting the incidence of child abuse and child homicides in New Zealand. If anything the problem has become worse. The legislation, championed by Green MP Sue Bradford, that criminalises every parent that uses any form of force “for the purpose of correction” must be repealed. The latest shocking report of yet another child homicide must cause all decent-minded citizens to cry out “Enough is enough! We must fix this disasterous problem!” Read more
No trial in Christian right to smack case
November 15, 2008 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
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 13, 2008 by SPCS
Filed under Family, Marriage, Uncategorized
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/
BSA Report on Children’s Television Viewing: Cause for Alarm
Media Release: 8 May 2008
The Society is not surprised that over half the sample (56%) of more than 600 adult “primary caregivers” of children aged between six and 13, who were interviewed as part of a report into children’s television viewing habits; were unable to identify 8.30 p.m. as the time after which programmes that are NOT suitable for children are shown on television The report containing this statistic entitled Seen and Heard, dated 6 May 2008, was commissioned by the BSA – the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
In response, the Families Commission issued a media release, calling for the 8.30 p.m. “watershed time” – to be more widely publicised by broadcasters. But is this an adequate response if the Commission is truly concerned about certain so-called “adult-only” material – pornography, sexual violence, graphic violence, blasphemy and obscenity – being viewed, or potentially viewed, by tens of thousands of our country’s children and young persons every night of the year from 8.30 p.m. onwards? Society president John Mills says the Society says “it is a totally inadequate response” and notes “we have written to the Chief Commissioner, Dr Rajen Prasad, pointing this out and called for more effective solutions from him to the problem of children and young persons being exposed to unsuitable, morally corrosive and corrupting television content.”
Pornography addiction and the impotence pandemic
December 15, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Family, Marriage, Moral Values, Pornography
The Impotence Pandemic by Dr Judith A. Reisman
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/10/the_impotence_p_2.html
Sex therapists and pornographers have long prescribed pornography to correct male impotence and to “spice up” a couple’s sex life. However, the broader meaning of “potency” is “power, authority … a person or thing exerting power or influence.”
The proper contextual definition of modern impotence, then, is not the narrow classification of “erectile dysfunction.”
One is not “potent” if one requires little blue pills, sexy pictures, or immature victims for sexual satisfaction. It is more accurate then to define men as impotent when they are unable to be conjugally intimate with their chosen beloved.
Princeton University professor of psychiatry Jeffrey Satinover said, “The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He … will place at risk his career, his friends, his family.”
Dr. Craig Anderson: Violent Video Games and Aggression
December 9, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Censorship & New Technology, Computer games, Family, Violence, Youth Crime
Dr. Craig Anderson from the University of Iowa is one of the most frequently cited and published researchers in the field of video game violence. Anderson’s work has been used in a variety of venues from scholarly publications to State Supreme Court arguments. Anderson research was used in the Illinois video game legislation defense where he was described as, “The nation’s pre-eminent researcher on the effect of exposure to violent video games.” Anderson’s work has been published in a multiple books, from Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on Development (2002) to his own Violent Video Games Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research and Public Policy (2006).
Dad Argues for right to hit son
December 7, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family
The Nelson Mail, Friday, 07 December 2007
By SALLY KIDSON – A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region’s first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.
Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent’s right to use “reasonable force” when disciplining a child.
The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.
The Case For Marriage
November 26, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Family, Marriage, Moral Values
Book Review by Kerrie Allen
THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially.
by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher
(Broadway Books, 2000, 260pp, $29.90.Available from AD Books)
The Case for Marriage provides the solid research facts about why marriage is a social good, more than just sex – and why sex is better in marriage – and why marriage is good for men and women, as it is for children. The authors examine one of the most powerful myths in society today that marriage is good for men but bad for women. This myth, promulgated by feminists since as far back as the 1960s, and still rife in our universities today, is that marriage is crippling and destructive to women.The overwhelming evidence today, after allowing for the many variables, shows the contrary: marriage is good for women’s health and also good for their emotional, sexual, physical and economic health. And it is the same for married men. The old adage that women care more about marriage than men is also debunked. Researchers using a measure for personal dedication found men and women equally valued their spouse as the most important person in their lives and were both willing to sacrifice, invest and strive for their spouse’s well-being. While sex is a very important part of marriage, it is not (as with cohabitators) the defining characteristic of the relationship. When it comes to sex, rather than marriage being a “ball and chain” that dampens or ends one’s sex life, married men and women report greater sexual satisfaction than cohabitating couples and singles. Read more
Chief Censor hardly fussed if “his kids” were caught watching hard-core gay porn.
October 15, 2007 by SPCS
Filed under Censor, Family, Homosexuality, Pornography
“MR CLEAN: Chief Censor Bill Hastings on freedom, family and the filthiest thing he’s ever seen”.
This was the front page headline of Canvas Magazine, an insert in this weekend’s NZ Herald Herald (13/10/07), advertising a three page Cover Story entitled “The Taste Master” by Derek Cheng on “a man who daily wades through horrific scenes of [hard-core] pornography and violence – for the public good”.
The Society believes that most decent New Zealand parents who care for the moral well-being of their children and young persons would be appalled that our “openly gay” [see ref. 1] Chief Censor has admitted that “he can’t see himself kicking up much of a fuss” if he catches “his kids” with hard-core porn or hardcore gay porn “so long as the material is legal.” (Canvas, pp. 13-14. i.e. not banned. Note: illegal material has been banned).
Most parents with a sincere and informed concern for their child’s moral welfare are aware of the morally corrupting impact, and addictive nature of hardcore pornography classified R18 as well as other porn classified R16. They would be outraged, deeply grieved and offended to have their children socialising in another family’s home (like that of Hasting’s) where the supervising adults took the same lassez-faire attitude towards hardcore porn, as he has expressed. Most want their children to have nothing whatsoever to do with porn for good reason and want their children growing up with a healthy view of sex, not the morally corrosive garbage promoted in hardcore sex videos featuring promiscuity and unhealthy sexual practices (e.g. sodomy), regularly passed by Hastings for teenagers and young adults to watch. Read more
Are Gays and Lesbians Demanding "Special Rights" in Seeking Same-Sex Marriage?
October 13, 2007 by admin
Filed under Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Marriage
This question is addressed in the Video Documentary Gay Rights / Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda marketed in New Zealand by Living Word Distributors (Hamilton).
The Society is most grateful to the Wellington-based gay rights activist, Calum Bennachie, for producing a full transcript of the video – excerpts of which are reproduced below to address the question under consideration. Mr Bennachie prepared the transcript (in the public domain) as part of a voluminous submission to Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”), in which he successfully sought, on behalf of Human Rights Action Group (Wellington), to have this video banned.
Excerpts from Living Word Video Gay Rights/Special Rights
(Note: The video has now been classified “unrestricted” by the Board following a unanimous Court of Appeal decision to quash the flawed High Court decision that had upheld the ban by the Board).
What is Wrong with Gay Marriage?
October 11, 2007 by admin
Filed under Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Marriage
Stanley Kurtz examines the social dangers of sanctioning gay marriage.
"A clear majority of the American public opposes same-sex marriage," says Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute. "And yet this opposition, though real, is by-and-large silent. So striking is this general silence, that one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for it."
To read complete article go to:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/KurGayM.htm
Also see:
Gay Marriage — and Marriage
Sam Shulman
"…In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two women must play the man. "Play" here means travesty–burlesque. Not that their love is a travesty; but their participation in a ceremony that apes the marriage bond, with all that goes into it, is a travesty. Their taking-over of the form of this crucial and fragile connection of opposites is a travesty of marriage’s purpose of protecting, actually and symbolically, the woman who enters into marriage with a man. To burlesque that purpose weakens those protections, and is essentially and profoundly anti-female."
To read complete article go to:
http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.php
‘Homophobia’, Same-sex ‘Marriage’ and the Aggressive Lesbian Political Agenda
October 10, 2007 by admin
Filed under Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Marriage
"Homophobia alive and well on [the Kapiti] Coast" was the headline of a recent letter to the editor written by a couple who criticised the Kapiti Observer Newspaper for publishing an article in which mayoralty candidate Jenny Rowan’s "sexual orientation" was briefly referred to. What the article did not disclose to readers was that this "openly lesbian" candidate and her lesbian partner of 20 years, Jools Joslin, have spent years crusading for the New Zealand Marriage Act to be radically changed so that same-sex couples like themselves can get married. Rowan has helped force the issue of her identification as an "openly lesbian" person and her claimed "gay rights" into a national political debate, at significant cost to the tax-payers through legal aid pay-outs involving High Court and Court of Appeal litigation, and yet now she seeks to downplay the relevance of her "sexual orientation" in the political sphere.
NZ Forum on the Family
This Forum to be held in Auckland on Monday 15th of October 2007 will bring together a national network of pro-family and pro-life organisations, scholars, lobby groups and leaders that seek to promote and protect the well-being of families, the role of parents and the welfare of our children.
For more details, go here.
Promoting Marriage and the Family
Marriage and the Family
(With selected Bibliography and Endnotes).
The Society’s Objects, taken from Section 2 of its Constitution, include:
(a) To encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person made in the image of God.
(b) To promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages.
(c) To promote the benefits of lasting marriage, strong family and wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities.
Affirming the Judaeo-Christian Framework
The Society is committed to promoting the Judaeo-Christian teachings on family, marriage and the nature of human persons – created in the “likeness” and "image of God" (imago Dei” Gen. 1:26-27).
The Empresses’ new clothes or Smacking: Those Kiwis must be crazy!
July 27, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Attorney-at-Law in Gothenburg, Sweden. President of the NCHR (www.nkmr.org)
One year ago, I travelled 36 hours from Gothenburg, Sweden to Auckland at the invitation of the Section 59 Coalition. I came to testify at the Parliamentary hearing on the private member’s Bill that proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act and to inform – and to warn – the general New Zealand public of the effects of the Swedish smacking ban.
How Caregivers will be Criminalised Under Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking’ Bill
April 27, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill
Press Release 27 April 2007
If Green MP Sue Bradford’s ‘anti-smacking bill’ is passed into law, increasing numbers of childcare workers (e.g. creche and kindergarten workers) and those in the place of parents (e.g. grandparents, foster parents and guardians) will be charged with criminal assault by the police for lightly smacking children for “correction” purposes and will find themselves before the Courts defending actions which the vast majority of good parents consider perfectly justified as part of good domestic disciplinary procedures. As one leading New Zealand barrister, Mr Peter McKenzie QC, has reported in a comprehensive legal opinion on the effect of the Bill, some could even find themselves charged with criminal assault for applying “force” for removing troublesome and recalcitrant kids to “time-out” or “naughty-mat” zones because the discipline was done with the intention and for the purpose of “correction”. The intention of Bradford’s flawed bill, as clearly stated, is to make the use of all force illegal when used for “correction” by parents or those in the place of parents.
MPS Fail to address Family Planning Association disaster
April 5, 2007 by admin
Filed under Family, Marriage, Moral Values
Press Release 5 April 2007
The results of the Youth Sexual Health report that was made public yesterday shows that years of tax-payer funded sex education classes organised by the Family Planning Association (FPA) and other like-minded groups have utterly failed to achieve any significant reduction in the high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. The Society is not surprised that New Zealand now has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancy among OECD countries, second only to the United States.
Legal Opinion by QC Shows How Good Parents Will Be Criminalised by Bradford’s anti-smacking Bill
March 11, 2007 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
United Future MP Gordon Copeland has recently received a legal opinion he commissioned from Peter McKenzie QC, dealing with the effect of Green MP Sue Bradford’s private member’s bill, on the actions of parents who remove their kids using “reasonable force”, against their will, to “time-out zones” for disruptive and defiant behaviour. He concluded that under the current amendments to the bill, parents would be committing an act of criminal assault for such actions, for which there would be no defence in law when an element of correction was involved. The current law does allow for a defence for parents for the use of “reasonable force” in such situations where they face a charge of “asault”, but only if their actions specifically involve disciplinary correction of the child. This defence would be removed if Bradford’s bill becomes law. Mr Mckenzie’s legal opinion is set out below in full.
Well over 80% Oppose Bradford’s ‘Anti-Smacking’ Bill
November 21, 2006 by admin
Filed under Anti-smacking Bill, Family, Moral Values
Press Release 21/11/06
The Society agrees with the 87% of New Zealanders who hold strongly to the view that parents should be able to smack their children without fear of breaking the law (Today’s on-line Stuff News Poll). Clearly the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders, as evidenced by the results of numerous nation-wide polls over the last few years, vehemently oppose Green MP Sue Bradford’s bill that seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Her bill, which was reported back to parliament yesterday from the Justice and Electoral Committee, with significant amendments as well as a bill name change (!); if passed into law, would criminalise every parent and person in the place of a parent, who used any form of force against a child in the context of and/or for the purpose of loving corrective discipline.
