Family First’s call comes in response to the concerns expressed by Papamoa Beach residents who are opposing a nudist event in their area this weekend.

 “Families are rightly concerned that they and their children may be confronted by full nudity in a public place,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Freedom of expression must never be at the expense of the right to protect children and families from offensive and inappropriate behaviour. We would not allow nudists to expose themselves in shopping centres or outside schools. Doing it on the beach where there are families is no different.”

Kapiti Coast District Council passed a Beach Bylaw in 2009 containing a clause “No person shall remain upon any part of the beach in deliberate view of others in such a state of undress as to cause offence.”

“Families don’t want their children being confronted by naked men and women. The rights of nudists to ‘hang loose’ should not be at the expense of families feeling embarrassed or offended. It is completely inappropriate for children to be confronted with naked adults wandering past them or sunbathing. It is not for families to ‘get out of the way’. The nudists should simply cover up.”

Family First is also calling on the government to amend the Crimes Act and Summary Offences Act so that the precedent to allow public nudity, set in past cases by liberal judges on events such as the ‘Boobs on Bikes’, can be overturned.

“There’s a place for nudity, but it is certainly not on our main streets or beaches which families and children use,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

Bob McCoskrie – National Director Family First NZ

www.familyfirst.org.nz

In a media release issued  on 10 December 2011, Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, states:

Family First  is rejecting claims by the Children’s Commissioner and others that rising child abuse statistics are ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’, and is repeating its call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into child abuse as a result of continuing ‘tragic’ figures. 

“It is time we stopped ‘marketing’ child abuse statistics and trying to give them a positive spin, under the illusion that we are succeeding. We need a reality check,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “The rates of child abuse have been rocketing up for the last decade – even before the flawed anti-smacking law was passed and the Family Violence awareness campaign began. Between 2003 and 2007 alone, notifications more than doubled from 31,000 to 72,000. The latest statistics give no confidence that children are any safer.”

 “To label our atrocious statistics as ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’ is an insult to the victims. Government groups cannot attribute the increase to greater awareness and better practice. The rates have been increasing markedly well before the public awareness campaigns, and the increase in admissions to Starship Hospital alone are proof that the problem is deterioriating.”

 “Alcohol and drug abuse are rampant in dysfunctional homes, family breakdown is a festering sore, and there is increasing violence in our culture. These are all signs that things will get worse before they get better.”

 “We have had Commission of Inquiries this year into the Pike river tragedy, the collapse of buildings and consequent loss of life in the Christchurch earthquake – yet no inquiry into one of the greatest social problems facing the country.”  

 “There seems to be no political party who is willing to front up to this issue on the scale required. Since the passing of the anti-smacking law, there have been at least 31 child abuse deaths. The rate continues unabated.”

 “The ongoing rates of child abuse are a wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse. An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and point-scoring is essential. We need long-term solutions to a problem that has existed for far too long,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

See: www.familyfirst.org.nz

Residents’ Action Gets Remuera Brothel Booted Out

Family First NZ is welcoming news that the residents in Remuera’s Ascot Ave near the Prime Minister’s residence have succeeded in getting rid of a residential brothel through community pressure. 

“It is disappointing that politicians have foisted a flawed prostitution law on families with the result of brothels setting up right next door to family homes – yet it has to take the determination and persistence of families to try and remedy this unacceptable situation,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. 

“We have huge sympathy for the families in this neighbourhood – but they are not the first, and won’t be the last to be harmed until the politicians admit they made a mistake.” “Accounts of home brothels where men willing to pay for sex are knocking on nearby homes trying to find the brothel, and concerns about noise, traffic, and late-night visits experienced by residents is unfortunately nothing new to many residential streets around New Zealand experiencing having a brothel in their residential street.” 

“It is a national disgrace that we are exposing our children and families to that level of risk.” 

“The opposition to residential brothels in places such as Remuera, Greenlane, Albany, North Shore, Mt Victoria in Wellington, Christchurch, opposite a school in Henderson, attempts by Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution in Papatoetoe and Manurewa, and opposition to the brothel in the main street of Dannevirke and Invercargill all show that communities are not accepting the liberalised and harmful laws.” 

“The decriminalisation of prostitution has been a community disaster harming families, businesses, and the welfare of workers caught in the industry. Cities throughout NZ have been trying to deal with the ‘hospital pass’ given by the politicians when they passed this law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 “Rather than families having to battle this alone, they should have the support of laws that work and that protect them. It’s time the politicians delivered that law.”

ENDS

It is of course a  practice each 25^th November marked by some men to show that they do not condone “men’s violence against women”, and apparently led by the Families Commission. However McCoskrie maintains that “this is a family violence issue, not a gender issue.” 

I couldn’t agree more, and sent off to McCoskrie the following:-

 “Congratulations on your superb article in today’s (Nov. 23rd) NZ Herald. It is a breath of fresh air after over thirty-odd years of rabid feminist propaganda. 

 I believe this has done  nothing for the domestic violence problem and gravely defamed good family men in the process. ”

For years I have endeavoured to show that feminist, anti-family women’s refuges – recipients of monstrous amounts of public money – should not be presented as the only places for such troubled women to go to for help; that there are pro-family, church-based ones also, and that women in such need should also have this choice open to them.” 

Talk about the hackneyed socialist cry “a woman’s right to choose”! In this respect, sheer hypocrisy more like! “ 

The McCoskrie article was followed next day in the Herald by a response from Families Commissioner Carl Davidson, who opined that the former “is likely to be a lone voice” with his decision not to wear such a ribbon. Oh yes? Thankfully not all have been taken in by the ongoing ideologically driven hoopla which has surrounded the domestic violence issue for the past thirty-odd years. 

I suggest the situation will be similar with this Davidson article. For example, we are told, without any hard evidence whatsoever, that there is “good science” behind the White Ribbon scheme : rather than blaming men, the plan is to show men “how they can be part of the solution. It uses the strength of men to bring about an end to all violence,” and similar waffle.  

 Interestingly enough,  just five years ago (13^th November 2006) the Herald was reporting a vastly different matter, but hardly more complimentary,  pertaining to the Families Commission :

“Domestic abuse campaigners accused of bias”. Two top health researchers, Professor David Fergusson and Associate Professor Richie Poulton, had accused the Commission of “ideologically driven bias in presenting domestic violence as a problem of men battering women.” etc. 

So much for that criticism of the McCoskrie article. Similarly with the sarcastic and highly devious blast  on Scoop 23^rd November, as well as in the Herald  two days later from Women’s Refuge CEO  Heather Henare. According to her, for McCoskrie to be wearing a white ribbon, and therefore to be making a public statement against violence would have been “an act of gross hypocrisy….after he campaigned to legalise parents smacking their children”! Her garbled logic to support this astonishing assertion is infantile and fallacious to behold: “How can someone who didn’t support a bill that would give children the same rights as adults against harm, in the same breath debate whether or not they would support an anti-violence campaign?” 

Henare then plays the “ignorance” card. By McCoskrie focusing upon gendered violence in NZ he simply does not understand what domestic violence means, and here the ideological dimension really reveals itself. She quotes the old and hackneyed radical feminist dogma that “domestic violence entails a systematic pattern whereby one person exerts power and control over another. The victim lives in fear. Overwhelmingly this is about a man’s violence towards a woman.” 

“Power and control” of course are the telltale clues here, indicating as they do the fundamental ideological influence of the Duluth Model which scandalously underpins and drives all NZ family violence public policy and the broad Women’s Refuge movement, as well as similar movements overseas. 

Although NZ media appears not to reveal any such information, there is copious scholarly discussion of it overseas, such as, for example, by Cathy Young and Bert H. Hoff. In Young’s 1999 article “Domestic Violations” (1) she gives a precis  of a 1998 article  by Hoff, “What’s Wrong with the Duluth Model?” (http://www.vix.com/menmag/batdulut.htm) Young explains:-

 ”(The Duluth Model) is the approach most widely used for perpetrator treatment-but it gender-polarises the ‘people problem’ of domestic violence. It blames and shames men. It’s based on ideology, not science. It ignores drinking, drugs and pathology. Only one cause, only one solution. There’s no real evidence it works. It ignores domestic violence by women. Women who need help can’t get it. It’s taught by wounded healers.”

 Young quotes from Hoff’s article : how supporters of the Duluth Model “don’t hesitate to call it a ‘sociopolitical model’, but San Jose therapist Eric Towle calls it ‘a radical feminist re-education camp’, where ‘battery’ is equated with ‘masculinity’. The goal of such sociopolitical therapy is to ‘challenge sexist expectations and controlling behaviours that often inhibit men, and motivate them to learn to apply newly learned skills in a consistently non-controlling manner.’ “

 Also from Hoff : “The model was developed, not by a team of psychologists and research scientists, but in consultation with ‘a small group of activists in the battered women’s movement’ and ‘more than 200 battered women in Duluth (USA).’ Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, associate professor of psychology at Indiana University, says  (US) ‘states are basing rigid treatment policy on rhetoric and ideology, not data’.”

 In summary, then, with such disturbing facts as these which lie suppressed behind the family violence/Women’s Refuge movement, it was entirely predictable that an uproar would be raised in some quarters about McCoskrie’s NZ Herald article  opposing the movement’s emphasis upon male violence instead of violence in general  and have to  be attacked and attempts made to discredit it.

Nevertheless, perhaps the  sixty four dollar question  is this :  for how much longer must the NZ public be kept in ignorance by media cover-ups about this scandalous state of affairs, this pernicious and treacherous attack on culture,  and be expected to fund such a  fraudulent and burgeoning “anti-violence” industry in the process?

Opinion Piece Author: Barbara Faithfull  B.A. (Psych.Anthr.)

25^th November 2011

References

1. Cathy Young : “Domestic Violations” in April 1999 Reason magazine.

http://www.vix.com/menmag/cyoungdv/htm

According to Statistics New Zealand, 273 Kiwi couples legalised their relationship in a civil union, of which 73 per cent [199] were same-sex. A further 65 civil unions were registeted to overseas residents.

The 199 same-sex civil unions entered into by Kiwi couples resident in New Zealand in 2010 constitutes 0.9% of the total unions (marriages + civil unions) entered into by NZ resident Kiwi couples in 2010.

Since the Civil Union Act came into force six years ago, and taking account of the growth in New Zealand population each year, the number of civil unions has progressively dropped each year from a high of 430 in 2006.

At the current rate of decline of civil unions entered into each year and the rate of dissolution of such relations, one wonders how long this ‘institution’ will go the way of the dinosaurs – a mysterious extinction that will catch us all by surprise.

The concept of the ”moral welfare” or “moral well-being” of children and young persons is well-documented in case law, as is the nature of activities that when promoted or supported (AND even when there is a tendency to promotion or support), are “likely to be injurious to the public good” or ”likely to [put] in jeopardy” the “moral welfare” of  members of the public, including vulnerable children and young persons (see below).

It is the ever-present threat of “likely” harm and injury (mental, physical and moral) and their far-reaching negative inter-generational consequences, as well as the accepted Judaeo-Christian belief in human dignity (“Man made in the image of God” – often not acknowledged), that have undoubtedly undergirded successive governmental decisions (driven perhaps in part by quickened consciences and pragmatism) to enact child protection and censorship laws to safeguard our precious children and young persons from the dangers of exposure to child abuse, family violence, depiction of gratuitous violence and inappropriate sexual content in the media and exposure to morally corrupting hardcore pornography etc.

In the New Zealand censorship laws a publication is deemed to be “objectionable” and thereby “likely to be injurious to the public good” if it promotes or supports, or tends to promote of support” six listed activities, including the exploitation of children for sexual purposes, necrophilia and bestiality. The “moral welfare” of children is clearly put in jeopardy when they are given access to publications containing such content. Adults cannot even view such banned material lawfully, with the exception of censorship officials.

Government has empowered the NZ Police, NZ Customs officers, the Courts, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, The Film and Literature Board of Review, the Censorship Compliance Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs and other enforcement agencies to ensure that censorship laws are enforced.

Child Youth and Family (NZ) acknowledge that the concept of “moral well-being” undergirded earlier legislation:

“The Child Welfare Act 1925 … was the first codification of child welfare as a professional activity. The legal grounds for intervention in the lives of families were: indigence (no person accepting responsibility for the child); neglect by parents; living in an environment detrimental to a child’s physical or moral well-being; not being under proper control; and delinquency. These differ somewhat from the modern emphasis on causation of harm to children as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse and maltreatment by reasons of neglect or deprivation. These earlier grounds shaped not only formal complaints heard by a Children’s Court, but also the informal work of the Child Welfare agency.” [Emphasis added - see ref. 1]

The “moral welfare” of children who live in close proximity (i.e. in a domestic setting) with those using their homes as a place of prostitution, even though making a living from prostitution is no longer unlawful, is clearly put jeopardy. Child, Youth and Family Services will intervene to remove such children from their ‘care-givers’ when they are alerted to such dangers.

If a child was allowed by her mother or mother to accompany her/him each time she/he went soliciting for sex on the streets and it came to the attention of the NZ Police, they would be required to intervene and ensure the safety of the child.

The concept of the “promotion” of “moral welfare” has a long history in the charitable sector within Western jurisdictions.  For example, society clearly has a vested interest in the long-term, fruitful and successful nature of marriages and recognises the harmful nature of acrimonious marriage breakdowns, infidelity, partner abuse etc. Its social and enforcement agencies have officers empowered in law to intervene and/or assist in order to promote “moral welfare” – strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation of stable communities. 

It is critical that non-government agencies and organisations promote the “moral welfare” of children and young persons and seek to have our government-appointed enforcement agencies supported and empowered to uphold “the public good” and prevent “”the likelihood of injury to the public good”.

Reference:

1. Care and protection: Capturing the essence of our practice

“Some history of New Zealand’s approach to child welfare

By Mike Doolan and Marie Connolly

http://ww.practicecentre.cyf.govt.nz

DEBORAH RUSSELL, (“Marriage should be for all”, October 21, Dominion Post) says the state has no business in the marriage game, but then argues that the state should redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage.

Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.

If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for tose children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. Onn average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.

Russell then argues that denying same-sex marriage is “discriminatory” and “reinforces the power of traditional churches by endorcing their morality”.

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a wholelot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminated against since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCaw can’t play for the Silver Ferns.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5849413/Gay-community-cannot-redefine-marriage

And secondly, marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage.

And this is where Deborah Russell’s opinion gets really interesting. She says marriage should be for “three or more, whatever”. By allowing only gay marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygymous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), incestuous, man/boy, or bestial unions. – if all that counts is love and commitment. Once the fundamental idea of marriage as one man and one woman is tossed out, all types of sexual activity could become permissible.

Russell claims research shows that 60 per cent of voters favour same-sex marriage – referring to a Research NZ poll of 500 people recently. However, polling commissioned by Family First of 1,000 NZ’ers through independent research company Curia Market Research in March found 52% of respondents support defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, with 42% opposed and 6% unsure or refusing to say. The only similarity in the polls was that females were more in favour of same-sex marriage than males.

All this suggests that there is debate to be had on this issue and John Key, Phil Goff and fellow politicians are right to progress slowly on this issue rather than capitulate to strong lobbying to change the definition. As Phil Goff argued at our recent Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

Interestingly, there is actually very little demand for same-sex marriage by homosexuals. In the Netherlands where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001, studies have shown that only around 4 per cent of Dutch homosexuals have gotten married during the first five years of legalisation. The demand for civil unions in NZ have been similarly negligible, despite claims by the government at the time of passing the legislation that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders were being discriminated against.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone. Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’. Russell is correct. Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage.

The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.
Bob McCoskrie is National Director of Family First NZ, and married Tina 22 years ago in a Methodist Church.

References:

Gay Community cannot redefine marriage – Opinion – Bob McCoskrie

[Note: Dom Post on line has changed heading from originally submittd by BM - "Marriage about purpose, not rights]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5849413/Gay-community-cannot-redefine-marriage

Also see:

Gay, straight, bi-marriage should be for all – Opinion -Deborah Russell

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824391/Gay-straight-bi-marriage-should-be-for-all

The Censorship Compliance Unit assessed the book, written by fundamentalist Christians Michael and Debi Pearl, and decided not to ban or restrict it. 

A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which the office and unit belong to, said while the book was contrary to section 59 of the Crimes Act, which stated a parent or guardian could not use any force on a child “for the purpose of correction”, that wasn’t sufficient reason to justify restricting or banning the 20-year-old book.

The complainant could, however, ask that the Office of Film and Literature Classification also investigate the book’s content.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5664782/More-than-1300-books-banned-by-censor

 To Train Up A Child courted controversy worldwide after a California couple who followed its instructions were convicted of murdering their seven-year-old adopted daughter.

An American child abuse victim, now living in New Zealand, complained to Whitcoulls last month and the bookseller agreed to remove the book from its website.

They also made a complaint to the compliance unit.

The victim said he was shocked to find out the book was being sold in New Zealand, despite the country’s anti-smacking law.

“I’m not one to prevent books from being sold, but I think an instruction manual on how to enact violence on your child is a completely different story,” he said.

“New Zealand has such a high rate of child abuse and to instruct people on how to do this is just so irresponsible.”

Source: Fairfax NZ

“We’ve had approximately 35,000 hits on the website www.protectgoodparents.org.nz which hosts the DVD and contains legal advice for parents, almost 10,000 copies of the DVD have been distributed to the public, and views on YouTube have just passed the 5,000 ‘views’ mark,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Considering that this is a 30-minute documentary being hosted on YouTube, this is a very high number of views.”

 ”We estimate that up to 100,000 people have viewed the video because of families watching it, reports received of the DVD being shown in groups and community settings, and DVD’s being passed on.”

 ”Every politician has been sent a copy of the documentary which contains clear evidence that the anti-smacking law   is criminalising good families. Interestingly, not one politician has responded to us regarding the facts presented in the documentary. Either they have refused to watch it, are yet to watch it, or they have watched it but don’t care about the experiences of families as a result of the law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 ”The documentary also proves that the report on the anti-smacking law requested by the Prime Minister John Key and headed by psychologist Nigel Latta failed to meet its terms of reference, was factually incorrect in places, and misrepresented the effects of the law.”

 ”At the recent Forum on the Family, both John Key and Labour leader Phil Goff said that they would amend the law if they saw evidence of good families being dragged before the courts and criminalised by the law. The evidence is now in. NZ families are becoming aware of the truth on this matter,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 ”This is now a matter of integrity for our political leaders.”

For more Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie – National Director 
Mob. 027 55 555 42

www.familyfirst.org.nz

The Family First Media Release states:

Make It Family Friendly, Telecom

Family First is welcoming Telecom’s decision to cancel its rugby world cup campaign.
 
“The campaign was always destined to fail because it was corny and not family-friendly,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
 
“The All Blacks fan club is made up of children and families, and any campaign needs to involve all ages and be family friendly.”
 
“The best thing to do with this campaign is to give it to the Family Planning Association and ask them to use it in schools with the sex ed programmes.”
 
Family First is encouraging Telecom to find a family friendly campaign that all of the kiwi family can participate in.

ENDS